Video and the Quality Debate

The debates about the quality of the video and audio content we create in-house are as hot as ever right now.

The are two camps
- Some folks think that viral, un-produced content is the way to go. Last year the "experts" said that your video content should look homemade, and authentic. The flashy produced look would turn youtube type viewers off.

- The video elite frown upon youtube and any content like it. To them it is unprofessional and nothing less than broadcast quality will do, even online.

While at a conference over the weekend I heard a refreshing take from a multimedia person who works for one of the local papers. In essence she said that their organization has content that has shot by professionals with big fancy cameras and stuff shot on the fly with a handicam, then there are levels of quality in between. She said, they understand that their audience understands the differences in the purpose of the content, and they consume it for the content and so much the quality.

I have to agree with her. I think there are times when you get a gem of video or audio while you are out in the field, and you should not just dump it if the type of content is what your audience is really looking for. On the other side of that just because a piece is well produced does not mean it won't be popular on youtube. One of our best looking videos on youtube is the second most popular one.

Let's just try to produce quality content, in a timely manner that represents the institution well.

I have been having quite a few discussions about video and audio lately. This is not the last that you will hear on this issue.