Video - Advanced techniques

Mindy McAdams wrote last week about an observation she made from watching three separate reviews about the iPhone.

In one review, the journalist basically sat at a desk and talked about the iPhone, with a few shots of the product. In the second review, the journalist visited an Apple store and did a funny skit about people camping out to buy the phone. The third review was Mindy's favorite.

That might be because it blends elements of both men’s 2008 video reviews — a bit of serious talk about the product with a funny opening and closing.

Mindy made several observations about the three approaches that I believe we can apply to all types of news videos — Not just product reviews.

In general I don’t have much patience with video that shows me a journalist talking to me. It’s not visually engaging; I’d rather see some aspects of the story presented visually instead of the face of a narrator …

If the audience turns its back on journalism because journalism is too dry and boring, then one solution is to deliver the content in a more entertaining way. I know that a lot of journalists feel very, very uncomfortable about that idea, and I would never recommend it for a story about war, disaster, economic declines, etc. But if making the delivery more entertaining results in more people absorbing and understanding the information — well, isn’t that a good outcome?

I agree that it's not appropriate to deliver all stories in an “entertaining” way, but it is mandatory to deliver all stories in a compelling way.

This is a post from News Videographer.

Observation to apply to all videos

Some lessons about how to write, how to report, and how to do video for online:

In conducting my iPhone research last week, naturally I consulted two of the better-known technology journalists, Walt Mossberg and David Pogue. I watched their video reviews of the product, and it made me think a bit about how journalists get the message across.

Mossberg (Wall Street Journal columnist) basically sat in his home and talked to a Web cam installed on top of his screen. His delivery is obviously scripted and quite informative. A video editor enhanced Mossberg's report with carefully inserted close-ups of the product, and while the review comes off reasonably well, it's a bit dry. At 5 min. 35 sec., it's a bit hard to stay with it.

Pogue (New York Times), in contrast, went out to the street in front of the glass-box Apple Store and performed a skit, with the assistance of a guy planted at the front of the line of real customers camped out to buy iPhones. There's no chance of confusion here — no one would mistake Pogue's sidekick for anything other than a shill. The contrived scene makes Pogue's report rather lively and somewhat amusing, but it's still hard to sit through the entire 5 minutes.

A year ago, Pogue produced a similarly fabricated, but highly informative, report on the first iPhone. At 5 min. 49 sec., that report held my attention much more successfully than either of the two mentioned above. That might be because it blends elements of both men's 2008 video reviews — a bit of serious talk about the product with a funny opening and closing. The middle section is especially effective, as Pogue shows us clearly just how to work the gadget, close up. That's a really good use of video, in my opinion. (Remember that he made this before we had seen the TV ad 10,000 times.)

In general I don't have much patience with video that shows me a journalist talking to me. It's not visually engaging; I'd rather see some aspects of the story presented visually instead of the face of a narrator. Last week I realized that reviews might lend themselves to a new kind of video approach — something like Pogue's, but maybe not going as far as the newer one. I've watched a lot of CNet video reviews in which a reporter sits at a desk and shows me a product — those are mostly horrible, and hardly watchable.

The challenge lies in balance — how much showing of the product is needed to balance the entertaining bits. I think it's also essential that the entertaining bits convey real information, and not degrade to lame joking and clowning (sort of what we're used to seeing on U.S. TV news, when a reporter decides to try a “light” approach).

The reason this is worth discussing: If the audience turns its back on journalism because journalism is too dry and boring, then one solution is to deliver the content in a more entertaining way. I know that a lot of journalists feel very, very uncomfortable about that idea, and I would never recommend it for a story about war, disaster, economic declines, etc. But if making the delivery more entertaining results in more people absorbing and understanding the information — well, isn't that a good outcome?

See also:

• New York Times video, unexpected subjects (June 13, 2008)
• Some fine examples of newspaper video (April 7, 2008)
• How to shoot video interviews (Feb. 8, 2008)