Principle 3: Video: The new core competency

< PREVIOUS | NEXT >

In computing, each generation has its own new core competency. For the PC generation it was the VisiCalc spreadsheet, which most of us know by its later incarnations as Lotus 1-2-3 and Excel. The next computing generation had Web browsers and self-publishing through HTML. And for the current young generation of computer users (ages 15-25), the new upcoming core competency is video production.

While video production is not as ubiquitous as Excel or Internet Explorer where practically everyone knows how to use those tools, the barriers to produce video have almost completely fallen, opening the door for anyone to use this form of communication.

Many factors have come together to make it possible. The price and size of video cameras have decreased considerably. Both Windows PCs and Macs come pre-packaged with free built-in video editing applications. But low-cost cameras and free to cheap video editing tools have been around for a while. The reason video is really taking off is because finally it’s easy to post, share, and view video online.

It’s this ultimate culmination of cheap and readily available video production tools combined with video sharing networks like YouTube that’s made video the new rising core competency. YouTube is not the first site to allow users to post video. It’s just that before it was so darn difficult; hence, it was often not worth the trouble. Pioneering video sites like iFilm and AtomFilms required filmmakers to mail in physical media that in some cases had to clear an editorial review before it was published.

The elimination of many of the gatekeepers has given rise to a world of video voyeurism fueled mostly by a sub-25 aged audience. That’s because that audience is the one that thinks to pull out their camera phone and shoot a 30-second video of their friends acting foolish. And their friends play to the camera. They’re not afraid of it.

Most people over the age of 30 wouldn’t even think to record any such event. Not only that, but if you stick a camera in the face of someone over the age of 30 they don’t just continue what they’re doing allowing you to record the event, but rather they become self-conscious of the camera and all of a sudden stop whatever they were doing. They become either silent or ask you why are you recording. Either way, the moment is over and the action of pulling out the camera has defeated the goal of recording an event in the moment. If you’ve tried to do this once and had this experience, the chances of you doing it again are slim.

For the younger audience that has become successful recording these "in the moment" videos, often the quality is subpar. But that doesn’t deter from the video’s draw to a very particular audience. For those people in the video, their family, their friends, and anyone else who knows them, the video is of great interest. Its success can be equated to that of an inside joke. While you may have no interest nor understand the content, there is a finite and heavily interested audience. That potential audience size is determined by how many people know the people in the video. Interested viewers will often forgive quality and professionalism if the provided videos are the only ones available on a particular subject with the given participants.

Online video sites (sharing or not) have given rise to four types of videos:

1. Voyeuristic "in the moment" videos – Usually plays only to a closed audience, but if the event is truly fantastic then it can appeal to a larger audience that doesn’t personally know the participants.

2. Missed opportunities – Repurposed videos from TV. YouTube owes much of its success as being the go-to place when someone says, "Hey, did you see the video of...?" Almost inevitably, that video will be available on YouTube.

3. Showcasing new talent – New quality filmmakers looking for a free distribution channel will find an audience if the content is compelling and good enough.

4. How to’s and demo videos – Video descriptions can be far more compelling and can explain a lot more than what can be learned by reading an instruction manual.

I liken the newfound popularity of subpar online video to my experience learning how to edit video. When I began playing around with Adobe Premiere, I wanted to create videos that would be of some interest to someone. I knew my first videos weren’t going to be that good, yet I still wanted an audience. So I chose my 4-year-old nephew to be the subject matter of my videos. I knew that my entire family would love the videos regardless of the quality of the editing or the production value. To quote my nephew’s reaction to one of my videos, "This is the best video ever." It wasn’t, but to that audience, my family, it sure was.

Sadly, because of the easy availability of video production tools, we’ve begun operating under this fallacy that everyone can and will be a video journalist. Current TV bought into this concept and is, in turn, trying to sell the public on a 24 hours news channel made up of user-generated citizen journalism.

When I was working at ZDTV which later became TechTV, we had a half-hour show that we produced once a week called "You Made It." And when we launched it we believed that we were going to get flooded with all this great video from viewers. We assumed that the public was clamoring for fame. We expected to get videos of people talking to their webcams or producing interesting video packages. The truth of the matter is we were producing a show for a general audience and we weren’t interested in those videos that only had appeal to a finite audience. As a result the programming department had a really difficult time filling 22 minutes (the duration of the show minus commercials) of user-generated video once a week.

The reality is we’ve been bred on high-quality network television that has high production standards. Your average Joe with a video camera and some editing software hasn’t been trained on how to create a TV-ready video package. Once they do get trained, they’re going to want to make some money at it instead of working for free as a citizen journalist.

Video is a core competency when producing for your finite audience (you can actually count the interested parties). Similar to when you send a holiday letter to your friends and relatives, it doesn’t have to be great prose, because the information within it is of great value to the audience.

Video for consumption by a non-finite audience (can be small or large, you just can’t actually count them) requires training. It’s no different than producing any other content. For example, just because you give someone a word processor, it doesn’t make them a great writer; they need to be schooled.

Current TV ran into a somewhat similar problem as ZDTV did with "You Made It." They don’t get great high-quality finished packages from viewers. What they get are packages that have some merit but are not good enough for airing. Still, they spot the rough talent and then take the time to groom them so that they can produce network-quality news segments.

The key to a successful video is to know your audience. Are they finite or non-finite? For finite audiences, they’ll often sacrifice quality for content. Given that non-finite audiences have been groomed on high-quality TV production, they demand higher standards. These are generally the rules, but with every set rule someone has broken it and become very successful. Look at poor-quality viral videos that attract a mass non-finite audience. Those viral videos succeed through the same finite audience’s willingness to sacrifice quality for content.

If you want to be the one telling your story through video, you must produce it at a quality level that your audience expects. The good news is your story is not limited by many of the constraints of traditional television. There are no thirty-second time limits for your message. Be descriptive. Show as much or as little as you want to show. Use video to better explain or comment on an issue that’s of value to you.

< PREVIOUS | NEXT >