-
The “no talent” competition
-
It’s important not to look at this reality/first-person fad as crappy quality or no talent, but as as style. Styles come and go and tis fad as well. Right now, however, I can tell you fist hand that it was my saving grace this year. My shows became in demand not because of the low flat budget I could quote up front as a one man band, but because of the personal flavor they offer in the end.
I have no doubt that I’ll add more production value to my content as this fad evolves. That’s my job… evolve with it (or better yet, evolve before it and let it follow me).
Today, most client assume a vidiot can light something, lock a camera down and shoot flat video from the 90s. What they wanna know today is can this person (not crew) engage with talent and people who are not use to being on camera… from behind the camera while shooting. Laugh if you will but in these viral times, I’ve been asked if I can do “that youtube look”. lol
why, yes, yes I can. It’s as easy as walking with a camcorder and saying dude.
-
“In other words, someone accustomed to the $200 local ad is never going to be the customer for higher-end productions.”
While I definitely agree with you, I don’t think the big-picture problem is that simple – it’s not purely about finding customers who are used to paying more for production services, because we’re looking at a paradigm shift that’s happening at all levels. Notice how many Fortune 50 company adverts (web or otherwise) were purposely shot like crud to capitalize on the whole YouTube, user-generated “authentic” revolution? Giants like Burger King etc. all do it, but you WON’T see them using that look for shots of their actual product. For that, they cut to the same masterfully shot film we would expect. They know better than to harm the brand, but they are absolutely on the lookout for ways to cut costs AND dial in to the Facebook/Twitter/YouTube paradigm, which dictates that authenticity and making gut-level connections with the audience is far more important than other factors, quality included. They are shifting toward building communities around their brands, rather than focusing on expensive wow-factor.
The point is that there are some things that can be shot cheaply without reflecting directly on the product or company image. In the quest for cost savings, every company on earth is reviewing their budget and they WILL go the cheap route for anything that doesn’t harm the brand. This is why I said corporate video, especially the talking head variety, is a dead man walking – there’s no need to shoot 90% of that in high-quality video/film with weeks of post, especially when viewed from the client’s ROI-driven perspective.
Brendan Coots
Splitvision Digital
http://www.splitvisiondigital.com -
[Brendan Coots] “This is why I said corporate video, especially the talking head variety, is a dead man walking – there’s no need to shoot 90% of that in high-quality video/film with weeks of post, especially when viewed from the client’s ROI-driven perspective.”
Brendan, man, you’re scaring me. You too Nick. But only a little, and only temporarily. Because “high-quality” isn’t just the “look” — it’s the experience and creativity of the interviewer and crew, too.
First, to add another data point to your evidence: I recently took in a dozen interviews shot by a corporate client on a Flip. If anything, the production value was worse than Nick described, because the client had attempted to edit them, losing a couple of generations in the process (with recompression artifacts galore). I cropped, color-corrected, reduced the noise, and the client is very happy. The interviews certainly looked authentic!
For the time being, I believe this is a very real phenomenon — even in our own industry. Check out the websites of several of the big vendors (some of them COW sponsors). Whatever light is in the room is the key. The camera doesn’t move. The audio is full of ambience. The talent is staff. And nobody cares. Content is King.
But I believe that eventually viewers will get sick of crappy-looking video in much the same way they turned against amateurish desktop publishing.
When the corporate video business comes back, and I believe it will, things will be a little different. There is already a reaction at the higher end against the beautifully-lit and tastefully-framed corporate interview. With some of the national cable docu shows I’ve worked on, the word from on high is that they don’t want the traditional interview anymore. Either go way over the top with your lighting/set design, or make it look like you just ran into the expert on your way down the hallway to get some coffee. Personally, I enjoy these shoots. They’re challenging, you never know what you’re going to be facing, and the results do seem … zingier?
Bob C
-
Created this video a while ago and when a client sees the side-by-side comparison, it makes a difference. Some still shoot crap, but it helps them make a more informed decision and can really help when they need to convince a higher-up to get some budget. Many times it’s letting them figure out what they don’t want as opposed to what they think they want or can accept.
Steve
-
Bob, and to the many others that are getting worried about this “good enough” technology and quality. You should all watch/re-watch Mike Judge’s Idiocracy. I’m afraid this low-quality, cheaper form of everything will eventually win out. Video production and post-production included.
-
Nice work, Steve. I’m curious as to just when and how you decide to show this to a prospective client, and how effective it has been.
Bob C
-
As the technicians/newbies need to figure out (a la E-Myth) doing the work is the easy part, getting the work is the challenge.
Up until yesterday, I’ve distributed that piece as a chapter on the custom DVDs I give to prospects – Yes, every new prospect gets a custom DVD with their name on it & samples specific to what they are looking for. Even if they’re not looking for seminar recording I’m priming the pump for a cross-sell to other departments. By showing them good/bad examples, you can immediately bring up identity/quality issues in kind of a subliminal way and now they are the ones with a bit of doubt.
This is not to say we don’t “polish a lot of turds” by editing their footage like you mentioned, but they know not to jump to a competitor because “we didn’t realize you did that (better quality work)”. The key here is to reduce services and not the price. Full blown shoot or a few hours of editing, my margins remain the same.
The gap between the haves and have nots is getting wider – junk video for a few hundred bucks or budgets in tens of thousands. Gone are the days of corp world calling and tossing in $10K without much thought. So the best deal now is to embrace what they want, get that relationship built, and cross-sell what you really want to provide.
Steve
-
…where one little negative thing, even in the midst of strong positives, swayed your opinion.
Something I’ve seen in many instances, and it always makes people look bad: Typos. If you’re writing something, and it’s a business communication, take the time to check and correct spelling. Especially people’s names. Almost nothing else will make someone look quite as bad.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up