[Note: This is the start of a column by Richard Koci Hernandez, called Conversations with the Video God. More columns by other MMS members are starting soon]
In late 2005 I heard David J. Leeson of the Dallas Morning News speak at a conference in San Jose, Ca. When he was done, I was convinced I [...]
[Note: This is the start of a column by Richard Koci Hernandez, called Conversations with the Video God. More columns by other MMS members are starting soon]
In late 2005 I heard David J. Leeson of the Dallas Morning News speak at a conference in San Jose, Ca. When he was done, I was convinced I had just met the biggest liar in photojournalism. I was the doubting Thomas to the Prophet Leeson.
At the beginning of his presentation David boldly stated that the still camera was dead and the future was [ he didn't say the word "video", but went on to hold up a video camera] David didn’t announce the death of the still ‘image’ but the death of the still ‘camera’ for photojournalists in favor of another camera, the HDV camera.
At the time I had just finished my first real attempt at trying to tell a story using my still camera (to feed the print beast) and a video camera , plus an audio recorder, (to feed the growing web beast). Needless to say it was the worst story I’ve ever produced.
I know the frustrations of feeling like a total moron while on assignment and not knowing which tool to be using. When I was shooting stills, I thought I should be shooting video and when I was shooting stills, I would ask myself, “how in the hell am I going to pull out the audio recorder?” And when I did, how was I going to record the subject without the sound of my motor drive in the audio?
The above situation plagued me for some time. So, when Leeson was selling what I thought was fool’s gold, I wasn’t buying. Leeson went on to say that with this ONE camera (Sony Z1U) you could record professional audio, video and stills. He was telling me that my days of ‘confusion’ were over. I understood the audio and video part, but the ’still’ part was total BS to me. Even after David showed examples from his coverage of Hurricane Katrina, I wasn’t sold. He told the story of being dispatched from the DMN to the scene of the hurricane and how he decided on the spur of the moment to take one of these new HD video cameras that were fresh in the box and go cover the event. His video coverage was worthy of an Emmy and his ’stills’ were clearly from a winner of the Pulitzer Prize. He also presented a mock-up of a book the DMN staff was putting together, with a selection of his frame grabs from the hurricane. They looked great, not like the TV frame grabs I was used to seeing. It wasn’t until I went up to him after his talk and pleaded with him to show me how he created the stills from video and show me the raw files. NOW, I was sold. Imagine me in a crowd of people waving a fist full of hundred dollar bills, screaming, “I’ll buy that!”
Weeks later, after not much convincing, my visionary DOP had a box for me. This event started what is now my real career.
What followed was the scariest and best year of my life. Scary, because I ditched my still cameras, literally turned in all the gear I had known and loved for 10 years. But the best, because it opened a whole new world of creativity and learning.
I also spent the next two years being St. Peter to the Video God. I went on the road and preached the good word of frame grabs, HD video and the video as “one-tool- approach” to every conference and group of two or three gathered in the name of video. And yes I still believe, but I’m having a crisis of faith. I know I won’t be a Judas to the faith, but I have some questions for the Video God.
Me: VG (Video God), Why am I here?
VG: Is someone talking to me? Hold on a second I’m busy trying to figure out how to actually make money on video.
Me: waiting
VG: OK, which person held in compulsory servitude to me for the working out of my indebtedness wants my attention?
Me: It’s Koci your humble servant.
VG: You again!
Me: Why am I here?
VG: To make me money and attract more viewers so you can keep your job. duh.
Me: I thought it was about new opportunites of story telling for print journalists.
VG: Oh yeah, that too.
Me: Well, I’ve been a faithful servant, doing whatever your disciples St. Angela Grant and St. Andy Dickinson say and reading all the crap they write over at multimediashooter.com-can you believe they changed the theme AGAIN. Anyway, I’ve also followed your advice and purchased expensive cameras for your most favored, The Photographers, and really cheap cameras for The Others, the reporters.
And no matter how hard I try, it’s just not working. We don’t seem to be making the kind of money you said we would and people aren’t really watching. You said video would save newspapers, I distinctly remember you saying this at your speech at ASNE. [Note to reader, if you don't work for The New York Times or the Washington Post and you are making money and gaining viewers, PLEASE share your winning formula, seriously, the rest of us could use it.]
VG: And your question is?
Me: Why should we keep doing video?
VG: Good question young padawan. You still have much to learn. First, don’t ask these kinds of questions, just shut up and do what I say.
Me: But really, why not let us do what we’re really good at?
VG: Well, bitching and complaining about the doom and gloom of the industry and how you should always use a tripod, doesn’t make me money. And that’s what you’re good at right?
Me: Ouch! I meant photographers using their Photo God given talent to create compelling audio slide shows (aka ASS).
VG: Don’t talk to me about the Photo God. He is dead to me.
Me: Well, I’ve been working hard and spending LOTS and LOTS of time producing videos, but one day I forgot my video camera [here's where I thought a bolt of lightening would strike me] and used my still camera and my audio recorder instead. And guess what? The result was kinda good and it didn’t take as long as producing a video in FCP or iMovie. With the help of the God known as Joe Weiss, I was able to export my ASS into a video format. [Note: PC users you can use a screen capture tool to do this, since JW doesn't always speak PC, Thank God he speaks Mac] And guess what, no one knows the difference anyway, especially the viewer. A good story is a good story, period.
interrupted by VG: Listen, do you believe in me or not?
Me: oh yeah, don’t get me wrong sometimes it’s the right tool, but not all the time.
silence
silence
silence
Me: Are you there VG?
silence
But seriously folks, I think we’ve taken the video thing too far. At first I believed it was the right approach, because I believed there was gold in those hills. I love journalism and would’ve done anything to save the profession (and MY job). There WAS gold in the hills for some and maybe there’s some left, but not for most newspapers. Because, once again, our beloved industry came late to the party, and as they scramble to get pre-roll ads, guess what? Pre-roll is dead [debatable by some, but I think the public has spoken and that's why we're seeing more 'lower third' like banner ads and the bottom of videos].
My point? I don’t really have one as much as I wanted to express a thought. The thought being this…Why not stop wasting money on video gear, new laptops to support your purchase of FCP, shotgun mics and expensive delivery systems like Maven or Brightcove, hours and hours of training (if you’re lucky), plus hours and hours editing on FCP, when all you really need to do is spend a few bucks on Soundslides. The viewer doesn’t know or care if the image moves like video or is a well paced audio slide show, they want a good story. Period.
I guess I’m saying let’s just get back to basics. Maybe I’m wrong. But I think it’s a discussion we should be having right now, instead of just drinking the Kool Aid. Maybe this is just one of my old time caffeine infused rants, either way this is my crisis of faith in the Video God.
Spiritual guidance welcome.
-r
24 Responses
Is this a radioactive topic, or what? It seems like you can’t stand up and point out the obvious about video as it stands today (few viewers, no good monetization, and labor intensive) without a bunch of “forward-thinkers” shouting you down.
I’m not anti-video. Just open-minded.
Photojournalism is all about talent and storytelling. To attract an audience and a following your work needs to be something that “regular people” can’t do. That’s why still photos from a talented photographer are so powerful: Because there is no way the parents of the kid in the elementary school talent show could nail the award-winning photo a professional can. They don’t have the timing, skills, or experience, and that’s our work becomes part of their lives, their scrapbooks, their histories. I don’t think those same skills are as apparent to the general public in video. They can spot a great photograph instantly, but video requires an investment of time that they’ve learned doesn’t always pay off.
There will always be something to be said about the power of high quality still photojournalism. It’s something we give the community that they can’t get anywhere else.
There are so many unknowns these days as the territory once owned by newspapers is invaded by the general public. But I’ll go down wondering if it was a good idea to abandon the power of the still image at a time when the public’s fascination with the still image was at an all-time high. Millions of digital still cameras being sold, billions of photos uploaded to sites like Flickr, etc. Couldn’t the best photographers in the world (us) be at the forefront of that movement, celebrating the power and joy of photography, rather than posting 320 pixel videos?
Answer me two years from now, from wherever you are. Maybe I’ll be shooting video, or maybe the fickle powers-that-be in newspapers will have realized that there are things newspapers have always done very well, and that those things (great reporting, powerful photography) can continue to bring them a profitable audience. We’ll see.
Richard–I belong to my own bizaare cult and I still believe even though my faith is tested daily. What keeps me going is telling stories through the subject’s voice and spontaneous natural sound. That’s more difficult to do with stills cuz you gotta juggle the asynchronous audio recording, interviews, natural sound, etc. It’s all about the story, the narrative. It’s not about the format. If a single photo kicks ass on a video, ’nuff said. If a series of great photos with a great interview, nat sound soundtrack over works, I salute you. It’s just a lot easier to get your sound while you’re doing your reporting, I think. The trick is making it good. I’m convinced what we’re doing (collectively) as photojournalists with web video is something new and powerful. Check out this year’s NPPA “TV” workshop in Norman. I wen last year but don’t think I can make it this year to my regret. The folks who teach there are some very powerful storytellers and very open minded about adapting to the New World of New Media. Keep up the good work. Tom
Trent, don’t feel bad, or alone. I can’t tell you how many times, as Chief Washington correspondent for Wired magazine and then MSNBC.com, that I was booed by the audience when I would make the claim that the media has always “bowed to the false God of Objectivity.” And please, let’s not debate that here. Every time a reporter frames up a certain shot and “the other shot,” he or she is not being objective; every time a reporter picks up the phone to call a source, he or she is make a subjective decision on what number to pluck from the rolodex; and every quote that’s in the story, or in the video, was purposefully (we all hope) chosen and place “right there,” all subjective choices.
The good journalists do this, most times, so that the story is fair, but in my book fair is a good hike from objective…
Enough going down that rabbit hole… Perhaps what has to happen in this evolution of news gathering is that we give up the “heroic” image of the “backpack journalist” (terrible phrase) and we start to cultivate news gathering teams.
Ever wonder why the folks at NBC, CBS, ABC produce videos every single day that just kick ass on 98 percent of the video produced by newspaper? It’s because they work in teams; a cameraman (or woman) does just that; the sound person is bulked up with his or her own gear. The cameraman never, natch, rarely, does the audio, and vice-versa and then there is the “talent” (yes, that’s what they call the on-air correspondents).
I know about one-man video/correspondent exercise that’s been going on in New York for, what seems like, forever, and well…
Now, there are exceptions to every tale here. Some here ARE indeed performing heroically, doing it all on their own. Those are rare souls, especially touched by the right hand of the Multi-Media God; anointed with the gifts of organization, pressure under fire and an employer with a fat bank account.
The rest of us, ummm… not so much.
Ironic that I’m sitting in an aiport on the way to the DNA2008 videojournalism conference where I am chairing a panel entitled “Newspaper Video will die in 2008.”
It has become clear to me over the last couple of years that video is but one tool in an arsenal of story-telling techniques. Not every story requires video; not every story-teller can use all the tools effectively.
And it has become VERY clear that newspaper video doesn’t get the traffic that we expected based on LonelyGirl15’s numbers way back when.
However, video is still an amazing story telling tool. We are victims of our expectations, not a flock fleeced by false prophets.
I agree with the “it’s one more tool” mentality, but without a messianic promise, how many newspapers would have tried it? Experimentation and failure are needed right now, and inevitable. The high-end stuff is overblown – you’re not going to be selling DVDs or blu-ray with this type of stuff…
I am not privy to all the naming decisions involved with multimediashooter.com but I think Koci had the appropriate mission from the beginning (even with all the theme changes!) This site wasn’t called VideoShooter.com because it was never about a particular tool, but merely choosing the right tools for the job. Pick the right tools, create a compelling narrative and Koci & the Gang rewarded you with a buzz selection. Chuck talks about an arsenal of tools and he’s right. This site has featured video, audio slideshows and panorama thingys. In the end, it’s been about giving the reader/viewer the best possible PACKAGE.
Tim mentions the importance of experimentation. We try, we fail, we try again until we get it right. Our knowledge and creativity will evolve accordingly.
Web video is not going away but poor choices will make it a joke. Still photography is not going away but poor choices will make it irrelevant. We have choices to make and now that expectations are being revised maybe those choices will be made with an eye toward finding the happy medium that creates the most fulfilling packages for our audience.
I’ve never believed the prospect of watching tiny movies on a computer screen was going to create a stampede of viewers to newspaper websites. But telling others that has been like being the only one who notices the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes.
Watching video is somewhat antithetical to the whole internet experience if you think about it. People like to quickly navigate and interact with the world wide web. Playing a video makes the viewer slam on the brakes and just sit there, much the same as they do watching TV. Except when they watch TV, they get to sit on their couch, each potato chips, and maybe surf the internet with the laptop.
What says it all for me, however, is a funeral I shot this week for my newspaper. On that first day, the story received around 500 hits and the video, which was done well, about 350. My gallery of 16 or so still images with no audio, just captions, got 9,000 hits. That right there is all the proof I need for what can make money for the newspaper.
Oh good (video) god! I’ve been canonised. That’s scary.
Richard. I’m with you on the audio slideshows. I think they are the best way to get people thinking visually and if they do move on to video then they are better equipped. If they don’t then there is still great content.
To Ron and Trent I would say ‘I’m with you”. To throw out good photography in favour of video is stupid, stupid, stupid. But to equate hits with money is an increasingly false position. What any multimedia (photos, text, video, audio) adds is value. Thats something different from money. That’s what we should be battling with Value not profit.
To Chuck and David I’d say “Amen brothers!”. That’s sounds like the true path to me.
I’m also getting ready to head off to DNA to sit with Chuck and talk about this stuff. Perhaps it’s telling of the age that I’m flying part of my own road to multimedia Damascus. The great thing is I’m not the only one on it and even if we don’t agree on the detail. I think we all want the same thing.
In my humble opinion, short video clips (Youtube style) is going to play important role in web journalism. There are many type of ordinary news reports, which can be greatly enhanced with video.
Let’s take a classic example, report from a news conference. Text is important, but generally I think 30 seconds video highlighting the crucial part of speech is more interesting than photos. And this also comes for many other types of news reporting. I personally invested quite a few bucks into DSLR gear, but watching the trends, the future is going towards the video.
Newspaper video is –so– 2007.
Patrick – why do you think so? And what is 2008 or 2009 in your opinion?
Probably, one of the reasons why we are discussing this today is because of the approach we followed to get here. A lot of people saw video as the panacea for the failing newspaper business. ‘There was gold in those hills,’ and the suits/editors/powers-that-be bough into it too.
So every body jumped into the video wagon and started doing it, some out of fear of losing their jobs, some because they truly believed in the power of multimedia storytelling. And in the mad rush to the hills, it seems like a lot of people forgot about one thing: quality. The same concept behind every photograph and every story good newspapers put out. Now, I’m generalizing here, it is obvious there is a lot of fantastic multimedia pieces being created out there, but let’s face it, most of the ‘professional’ multimedia work out there is either boring or just plain bad. And since the powers-that-be had drunk the kool-aid as well, they wanted they to see results, they wanted their pound of flesh. So they didn’t have time long term projects, or they couldn’t fathom the thought that one would spend 2 days shooting and editing a 3 min. video. They wanted more and more, they wanted hits! It didn’t matter the content or the quality. Press conference? Shoot video. People waiting in line? Shoot video. Paint drying? Shoot video. Grass growing? Shoot video!
So years later, after spending countless hours shooting and editing all sorts of videos and slideshows, (some good ones, a lot of mediocre ones) we look back and think, ‘Where’s the gold?’ ‘Where are the throng of viewers?’ Well, we lost them. We lost them because of poorly-produced work, we lost them because of ill-conceived strategies, we lost them because of poorly-planned video players., we lost-them because of lack of diversity in the distribution of our content. We lost them because as somebody said in an earlier post we ‘came late to the party.’ Our viewers went to YouTube where they could get the same poorly-produced videos, but at least there were entertaining and funny. Because we missed one very important point: we are supposed to provide quality storytelling and a unique, fresh and insightful perspective, just like we do with our photographs and our print stories. Someone said before that people come to the newspapers because we provide something they couldn’t get with their point-and-shoot camera at their kids’ football game. Isn’t this true for video and multimedia too? How can we expect to survive if 16-year-old kids are producing the same (or better) work we produce? How are we setting ourselves apart? What are we bringing to the table that is different?
I think we are in this state because of our great expectations and our naiveté. Perhaps we judged our audience wrong. We forgot that we such plethora of options at their disposal, an extraordinary effort was necessary to capture their attention.
Video isn’t THE solution, is just another little step in the evolution of newspapers. But just like anything else, it has to have a purpose, quality and content. Call it a video, a slideshow, a video-slideshow or whatever it is. it must be driven by the same standards of quality and professionalism we have always cherished. Video and multimedia aren’t a quick solution, they are a long-term treatment for our illness.
Stills images aren’t dead, print stories aren’t dead, they are just evolving, and we are very early in the evolution process. Is not the core that is changing, just the distribution outlets. Whether newspapers are be read/deliver on an iPhone, e-paper, a computer or good-old paper it doesn’t matter. We are going to keep our viewers but providing quality content.
i don’t know how to save newspapers, I don’t know what the business will look like in 10 years, but i know something: quality and good content rule, and I said this as a viewer, as a consumer. Will this, and this alone save us, I don’t know. But at least I believe this would be a step in the right direction.
So, do not give up on this ‘video thing’ so soon. We must keep working to improve our offering, and collectively raise the quality of our work. Let’s give our viewers a good reason to keep watching. Let’s keep educating the suits and powers-that-be how to do this right.
Once the dust settles, we’ll find the gold on the top of the hill.
- Ricardo
Personally I do believe that audio slideshows remain the ‘favorite’ web destination. People still love looking at photographs, video just doesn’t cut it as the only medium, they love to sit in their office and click through a slideshow that is well done and put together. The real well done ones with ambient audio combined with voice-over and maybe even some B-roll video can by dynamite but they are still anchored by quality and compelling photographs. If it’s video or if it’s stills the slideshow needs to be done well and the people will come, albeit probably not the millions that some advertisers want….
Video isn’t the savior, money is. That’s where the real movements need to be made, in realizing how to best harness the views and ‘clicks’ and turn those tangible, countable units into advertising dollars. I don’t think the formulas or strategies have been developed that best combine online content with advertising although the days of the super ads are gone there is plenty of cash to be made by capturing a pair of eyes for a few minutes on a computer screen.
Perhaps the ‘local’ advertising markets need to grow for newspapers, the Ace Hardware down the street should have an ad in the slideshow about home improvement. Jan’s Bridal Shop should have an ad in the slideshow OR ARTICLE about the rising cost of weddings. The boon for newspapers was once upon a time the local merchants, not the Staples or McDonalds, those are well known brands that don’t need to spend ad dollars in the Lincoln Journal Star but the local vegan store could use more people coming in, that’s why they should advertise in the article about the growth of alternate diets and lifestyles in the region. It needs to be an increase of matching ads, both local and national, with the content that is related or geographically specific. It’s a tough road but it’s still a relatively new movement going from analog (print) to digital (web) and I think a lot of kinks are still needing to be worked out. Newspapers need to go local, do the stories that affect the immediate area and get advertisers that rely on those affected and those who will read those articles to spend money to get tangible results (eyeballs on the page.)
Personally, the content is there, talented people are at every newspaper and while many folks (me included) need to get better at this ‘multimedia’ monster we need to have the sales teams working to sell ad space that will capitalize on the traffic we bring in.
I work at an alt weekly in Burlington Vermont called Seven Days. I shot, edited and produced 100+ videos for Seven Days in 2007. The community response has been very positive and we get deluged by requests for coverage.
We are not making tons of money specifically off the videos but we are building connections and strengthening our unique brand in the community. The videos make the paper stronger and the local ad revenue supports the videos and the paper. We are a cohesive entity that works together to succeed.
Granted, I am lucky to work for a progressive paper with publishers who are forward thinking enough to take risks.
Most of the videos I make are more arts and culture related but last week I made a video about Nick Garza, a missing college student. I was frustrated by the local news coverage and hoped to get Nick’s story a presence on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvZzqBCjo0E
In one week the video has 29,000 hits on YouTube. It is not masterful journalism but it gets the facts about Nick’s case out to the public. We don’t have to mimic regurgitated TV media – we can brave new paths through the wild toward an uncertain future. Cool!
Video journalism is not dead, it is just beginning. I am excited to see what experimentations small town videographers/filmmakers like me will try next.
The future is not ALL about video, but the tools are undeniably exciting. Just because they are available to the masses does not mean we have to be afraid of them. Just because this was proselytized as the Video Answer does not mean we have to reject it entirely.
I welcome these bold video leaps into the great beyond and I can’t wait to see what is next!
Eva Sollberger
Videographer
Seven Days
Burlington, VT
Brock hit the nail on the head when he wrote this:
“Ever wonder why the folks at NBC, CBS, ABC produce videos every single day that just kick ass on 98 percent of the video produced by newspaper? It’s because they work in teams; a cameraman (or woman) does just that; the sound person is bulked up with his or her own gear. The cameraman never, natch, rarely, does the audio, and vice-versa and then there is the “talent” (yes, that’s what they call the on-air correspondents).”
Newspapers will have to realize that to produce good video you need to have a group of people dedicated to producing video, and only video. This is not an attempt to disparage the photogs shooting video right now, but the schedule of a photog at a busy paper just doesn’t allow for the time needed to spend with a subject to get good interviews and good b-roll. I’m also not asking that newspapers hire an audio guy, a shooter, best grip, and a 2nd AD. A Producer, Production Assistant, and video editor is the team I’d like to put together. Good video takes time, good video requires teamwork.
I’m a videographer by training, hired by a newspaper largely on the strength of my video credentials, working in a…photo department? Something is odd there. Split em up, let the photogs shoot stills and the video team can tackle the moving images.
I think what we are seeing is something that is always true of things That evolve. In the ’30s, as some of the first computers came out, popular science made bold statements that automated and computer controlled devices would change how we lived and worked, and if you looked at those stories in the 1940s-50s you would think how wrong they were, but now go back and look at them and they got it right in some things and wrong in others.
This is just a step along the road of the evolution of video, (and might i say all multi-media.) Was the macbook air the first computer? was Henry Ford’s first car the GT40? was George Eastman’s first camera the EOS-1ds mark III? NO!
We are all still designing how this new tool should work. Still cameras aren’t dead but nether are video cameras.
Like Michael I see video as becoming a separate entity within the newsroom. But i see it that way because it is a faster way to make videos. I am a still photog Convert who drank the kool-aid a long ago when I was in college, back when David Leeason was still shooting stills, and the DMN video lab was a dream.
I am one of the Lucky few who have the luxury of shooting only video. But the reason I am allowed to do that is that it is faster than having just one person work on everything. evolution is about getting rid of what doesn’t work, as long as people want to look at pictures there will be photographers, as long as people read there will be writers and as people come to expect video on a news site there will be videographers.
We should all just remember we are living in a great time where there are few rules and we can be creative as you want. there are no “industry standards” or “set styles”. you can still say “I get paid to do this?”
I agree that:
- Video isn’t the end-all-be-all savior (okay, now you’ve got me using this stupid theistic language) of the newspaper industry.
- Audio slideshows, hell just plain silent slideshows, are awesome and should be respected more than they are.
- Teamwork is the only way to produce quality work in multimedia of any kind.
- Poor quality content has turned viewers away.
I disagree that:
- Video is dead, or “so 2007,” or the reason newspapers continue to be in the toilet profit-wise.
- Pre or post-roll ads are dead. Okay, maybe post-roll.
- One person can do it all.
- Still and video should be split up (Sac be is going the opposite way, probably mostly for personnel reasons, but also video was treated like the redheaded stepchild)
- The video camera could ever replace the still camera. Ask PF Bentley.
Richard, wow. Why the change of heart true believer? I just saw you at the Flying Short Course and you seemed pretty gun-ho for DIY, pick the paper up by the bootstraps, take no-prisoners all out war on the slumping industry. Worn out? Sick of it all? Frustrated?
Don’t blame yourself man. And please don’t blame the renaissance of newspaper video shooters. You were setup from the beginning. You were duped. We all were. I’m not gonna name names, or put anyone on blast in such a live, public forum, but there have been those amongst us that tend towards excitability and irrational thought. Those who would lead the sheep astray. Damn it there I go with the theistic language again… maybe that’s the best way to say it: get out of the religion talk. This isn’t church, it’s business.
Here’s what I mean: video was the opiate of the newspaper masses (or was, seems this is turning around as evidenced by your own words and some newspapers cutting back on their video ambitions). As has been said above, far too many scrambled to get video on their newspaper’s website because it was going to turn print newspapers (water) into a fantastic online presence (wine). But now it seems video is going to be crucified: too few hits, ad revenue isn’t anywhere near enough to replace newsprint ad losses, the big bosses still don’t get it.
Video isn’t a savior. Video won’t die for newspapers’ sins. And these sins are many. And this is where we get back to business.
- Newspapers have ignored the threat websites like Craigslist.org, Monster.com, and others posed to their print advertising for FAR too long and are only in the last couple years trying to do anything about it.
- Newspapers have functioned on the same business model for the last… um, forever… That is, produce good content and basically give it away – subscribers are not the main income source. Then, allow advertisers to pay a lot of money (about $20 CPM) to reach those eager readers. Fine. But.
Newspapers have allowed themselves to be duped by the internet’s prophets (there’s that religion thing again. Is it just me or do religion and good business not mix very well?) into ignoring it’s lack of profits. (Web advertising CPM is around $2-5). Pre-roll, post-roll, lower thirds, banner ads, everything is wholesale online. Do we see a problem here? I’m not advocating changing the business model… get those CPMs up!
- Newspapers have tried to cut their way to success. When has that ever worked? No seriously, if there are success stories I’d like to hear them. I’m sure we all would.
- Newspapers haven’t invested in researching, analyzing or verifying so many of the claims those same internet prophets have been making for 10 years. I’d like everyone to read this article on AJR: http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=3230. It’s from 1999. Any of it sound familiar? I think there are lessons to be learned there.
And that brings us back to video. I say we all need to take a step back (right Richard?) and analyze what’s being done with video; what’s working, what’s not, and what’s worth looking into more.
But that still isn’t going to save the newspaper. What will save the newspaper is doing the same for the strategic development of the newspaper. There has to be a tightening of the belts in all areas (that includes the 30% profit margins investors are used to. Suck it up Wall Street, a democratic institution is depending on you). There needs to be a collective chill-out across the board so people can get their heads on right again.
In the mean time, don’t hang your hopes and dreams on the Prophet Video. He’s merely mortal. You can, if so inclined, get involved with Profit Video. Corporate America – even small business America – will pay good money for good video. Ask PF Bentley what his last video of an author brought him in, and which day he spent to get that 4-figure sum. And ask Brent Winebrenner how much the winery he shoots stills for recently commissioned him to shoot video for.
Newspaper video is complicated to be sure. But dead? Where you see a failed savior, I see John The Baptist. Be baptized and pray the true savior is still to come.
Amen.
Hey folks – great discussion but as I hear the debate rage about the value of video vs audio/slide shows and the role each can play in bringing audience engagement (and dollars?) to online news sites I’m struck by something: the absence of data. Facts – remember them?
I run my newspaper chains rather massive “WebU” – a digital and web tech training centre that’s putting 500 employees through a week long training program and we’re teaching both soundslides and video (and lots of other stuff). I too worry about the prosteletyzing that’s gone on, the fever pitch of enthusiasm around video and the mounting backlash from slide show advocates. Obviously we need both tools in our belt, but where should we be investing our scarce staff time, training and equipment dollars for the best return?
My instincts (and data I’ve seen on GENERAL video watching on the web suggests that video is and will be a much bigger driver of traffic and that soundslide shows are favoured by photographers precisely because they are so comfortably close to a medium (still images) they understand so very well, and not because audiences really crave them. I mean, when was the last time a slide show went ‘viral”? I’ve never gotten an emailed link to a slide show from anyone OTHER than a photographer — I’ve had dozens or perhaps hundreds of video links emailed to me from all sorts of folks.
But that’s mere anecdote.
Where’s the data?
Ron points to one instance where his slide show of a funeral received 9000 hits versus 350 for the video and just 500 for the text. Are those “hits” unique visitors? Page views? Does each slide count as a single page? Those numbers seem so disproportionate I can’t help but wonder if they’re an artifact, rather than a good audience measurement.
But I don’t know.
The online searching I’ve done has only turned up one other set of actual numbers that appeared on Mindy McAdams blog Teaching Online Journalism, a set of frustratingly vague numbers from the Sydney Morning Herald that showed the best soundslide shows were far more popular than their video.
It should be childsplay to see which format is more popular with our communites. Does anyone have any real numbers?
Bill Dunphy
I don’t want to waste your time with a lot “me too” type statements. Video is just one tool in a photojournalist’s kit.
Journalism today is fun but scary place. There are so many more ways to tell good stories.
i disagree with an earlier poster, one person can do outstanding journalism be it video, ASS or purely stills. Plus it doesn’t matter what we think on this anyway, it’s the financial reality of the business today.
From a photojournalists point of view, we must learn which tool tells the story best and the vocational aspects of the tools.
From a photo manager point of view, we have to figure out how to give photojournalists the time to produce good stories and learn the tools.
Alan
This was a bit of a shock to read considering it’s author. But it’s a good shock, and I entirely agree. I think ultimately the story should dictate the medium, not the other way around. So in that sense, it’s wise to learn video and gather as many storytelling tools as possible. But we should be able to step back and ask how can I tell this story most effectively, not how can I tell it most effectively with video.
Yes! Richard! it was shocking for me to read your post. I heard David Leeson and saw his video work for the first time at the 2004 Flying Short Course. I was intrigued. In 2006 I hung with you for the day at the Merc watching you work with Soundslides and Flash. I was HOOKED! I’ve been a multimedia cheerleader in the newsroom ever since.
The above respondents post valid points, and most seem to say ’stick with video, but do it right’. This takes team work that includes editors and managers believing what we’ve said here, and helping us along. Yes, we need to step back and take stock, but let’s not be rash and say it’s not worth it. And I sense that some editors/managers may be saying ‘I told you so’,
Ben Garvin’s post says it best for me: “This was a bit of a shock to read considering it’s author. But it’s a good shock, and I entirely agree. I think ultimately the story should dictate the medium, not the other way around. So in that sense, it’s wise to learn video and gather as many storytelling tools as possible.”
‘Wise to learn video.” All newspapers should have a multimedia arsenal to produce great stories. The TV news, which is soley video, is entrenched in a certain delivery style. Newspapers have an advantage over TV news in that we can deliver a story many different ways (print and web), but we’re not stuck in one style yet.
So let’s keep producing videos when it will work better, shoot stills when it’s more appropriate (if it’s going to make a better presentation), and do ASS when it’ll reach out more.
I also think that video presentation, i.e., where the video resides and how good the player is, makes a critical difference in user experience. If the video is hard to find, difficult to play, is choppy, acts goofy, has too much pre-roll (AP), people will not return even if it was good. And it should be good (but that’s a whole other column). We’re treating our websites too much like the print newspaper. We don’t know or have forgotten the mantra of good web design: NAVIGATABILITY.
Another important thing we sometimes forget in the frenzy is that this is the READER’S experience, not ours. We may desire a certain medium to tell our story, but if the readers (viewers) don’t read (watch) it, we’ve failed to deliver.
Yes we’ve committed many sins.
Another thing to think about. There is still a pretty good chunk of the computerized population that can’t watch video on their computers. Think of what the internet was like 5 years ago (especially for video). Imagine what it will be like 5 years from now. Internet2 is here, and eventually everyone will have a lightning fast connection compared to today. We’ll be able to watch DVD quality full-sized movies and have crystal clear face-to-face conversations over the internet (like we used to see in old spy movies). Heck, we’ll probably be able to do live broadcast over cell phones. Read this: http://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/20277/page1/?a=f
So sorry, I’m an optimist. Wait…I’m not sorry.
Keep the faith. Fight on!
It will get better.
Laura Dickinson
The Tribune, San Luis Obispo
[...] it seems like most people just reacted to the headline and didn’t actually read the entire post. Come on you guys! Maybe the critics are right and long form writing doesn’t have a home on [...]
Wow, I don’t even know how to write a comment for this, since the discussion is going about 12 different ways! I should really check this section of my feed reader more often though. I’m actually glad this went under such debate, seems like a healthy change after all the buzzword zombie actions I’ve been noticing.
Overall, video is indeed another tool. It should be used when necessary, but in most cases, it’s probably not needed. This has been mentioned several times in the comments already, so I won’t rant on it. *Edit* Ok I lied, it looks like I wrote a rant, one that I had to cut myself off on.
I’m sorry to say, but a vast majority of newspaper video I come across is shaky, poorly shot, displays a brief sense of emotion that won’t stick with the viewer, and I would have saved a lot of time from just seeing a picture. I question why they even have video cameras in reporters hands sometimes. Quality over quantity? I remember when I used to get drilled in photojournalism class for my edit not being tight enough, now I see papers saturating the web with video and 50 picture galleries, all piled into a extremely poor website used for delivery. Other factors like REALLY bad flash use also plays a factor. Sorry, but flash isn’t needed just because you can make something look cooler with a tween that sucks up file size. The web industry has ranted about this for years, we’re just a little behind when it comes to this.
Brock makes a strong point when he talks about high quality video content and it being something that is produced in teams. I spent a portion of my first 3 years in school doing TV work on the side to pay the bills. I worked at a low-budget local Charter Media office, and we took 5 people to shoot the Sunday morning bowling show.
A solid 2-3 person multimedia team, especially for stand-alone video content, would be much more effective. Most video we look at is a series of cut scenes, different camera angles to retain visual interest, and then b-roll and transitions. You can’t do that alone when it comes to journalism content. Handing someone a handycam and a tripod, in most cases, is going to produce some pretty boring or headache causing shaky content.
Bill Dunphy raised the question of “Where is the data?” which is something I have been asking about since I got conned into doing web stuff when I got to journalism school. From conversations I’ve had, and a lot of personal research, most of the time the data doesn’t add up to something we would like. Chuck Fadely said “that newspaper video doesn’t get the traffic that we expected” which I can totally understand.
A lot of that falls back onto our industry being pretty out-dated when it comes to the web. Colin Mulvany mentioned a great deal of my concerns in his “The Apocalypse is upon us…video is dead!” post which responded to this column, but there are many many factors to be considered. The industry as a whole is drastically behind when it comes to their websites and content delivery in the modern world. Even those who are on the cutting edge feel hacked up and lack a concrete secure solution to the problems which must be considered on the web.
I know at the University level, as much as multimedia has been pushed thanks to the buzzword spin the industry has placed on it, the viewership is not very strong. I’ve done work on several small to mid-sized university news websites in the last two years, and the numbers are not particularly strong by any means.
The weakest of the links does indeed seem to be video, with audio slideshows behind the more popular of the content, but still running a lap or two behind the still gallery or individual story containing embedded still images/galleries. Even videos which reached particular high statistics had a very short viewing time, which corresponds with much that is already known about the web. If it’s too long and doesn’t hold interest, don’t expect your viewer to make it beyond the 30 second mark before moving on. This makes me wonder if 18-minute-long MediaStorm content really gets it’s message out there, beyond the industry viewers such as ourselves.
I wrote about this on my blog over here: Why Video Sucks. Don’t be distracted by the name. I’m not talking about video on the web in general – look at the succes of YouTube, duh – but I am talking about newspapers going nuts with video. Not TV station websites like CNN or the local TV stations either. Just newspapers.
It’s just not a talent newspapers have in-house to leverage, nor is it one they can afford. I argue that newspapers would be better off spending their time and resources on the basics. What’s the basics? Traffic, everybody! Traffic, traffic, traffic. Owning your community on the web. Building the numbers that your salespeople can sell to advertisers so your website can afford to experiment on the things that will actually bring in more eyeballs…and so on.