Readers: How interested in video are they, really?

I think some folks, myself included, don't always watch video because of where they are surfing from. I mean, if you have a few down moments at work (I know, what's that?), you aren't going to watch and listen to some video there. Our web site gets most of its hits from the 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. range on weekdays. The people coming to our site then probably don't want to click on videos either.

 

We get hits in the hundreds for most videos, but we get thousands upon tens of thousands of clicks for the most inane photo galleries. Yet, we don't hire any more photogs. We just ask them to do more and more AND TO ADD SHOOTING VIDEOS.
Still, I think as kids get older video will become bigger and bigger for us, and we have to be ready or else we will lose the personnel advantage we have over TV. They already know video. They just don't have the people to do what we can do. I know we had a video training session with about 24 of us learning to shoot and edit, and they had one last year, too. I've shot one video on my own and several with a co-worker. And, yes, it takes far too long, but it took me a long time to research and write one story back when I was an intern, too. It will get easier and quicker.
One thing that is interesting to me is how tempting it is to stage things and to skirt journalist rules. I've always criticized TV folks for doing it, and I've been able to beat the temptation, but I can see how people would want to cut corners. OK, enough of my rambling.

 

Considering that most people are accessing the web from work when they're on those news sites, you're not going to get a lot of hits for videos.

 

We got stats from our web desk that show that our videos in the last month or so got from 150 to 2,500 hits, but less than 50 percent of those who started watching, completed the video. I know most stories aren't read to the end, but these numbers surprised me.

 

We've had a very positive response to video, especially the stuff we've posted when it comes to sports. But it may be a little different for us, because, as a community paper, our main coverage is focused on two high schools, so we cut together highlights from the games/matches/etc. they go head-to-head as well as playoffs.

We had a good deal of requests of DVDs of the videos we're posting, especially after a few of the teams won state championships and we had highlights from each playoff game.

 

We did game videos for the football season and generally got 200-300 viewers. Our editor wasn't happy with those numbers and will probably be pulling the plug on that project for the next football season. It costs way too much overtime for our small staff.

My paper is located in a pretty small community in an isolated area, but I had a friend at a bigger paper say they were also getting about the same range of views. What is a good number of views for videos?

 

So far, I tend to agree with this, SockPuppet.

Wonderful...Just what we need.

Do you, or anyone else, know what would be considered good, in terms of the actual numbers/rates of clicks/views and complete views, per month?

I wonder if there's any kind of standard for measurement being used, besides just whether there have been more than there were last month, or last year?

Revenue-producing idea, anyone?

 

We've gotten great response to our videos. We started them during football season, and really got going during the basketball postseason.

We don't even edit or anything, we have a web department that handles all that. I would SO not want to do that and have to write and take photos. I feel for those who do.

 

I know I slammed my shop earlier on, but I did forget to mention we hired an intern who is a) interested in online video b) is strictly adhered to that "department" during her internship and c) doing a damn fine job.

I'm all for video on newspapers' sites if the newspapers hire a VIDEOGRAPHER specifically for that.

 

I don't think it matters how interested the readers are in video, it's what newspaper Web sites are going to give them regardless. There is no technology that newspaper editors won't embrace, no matter if it's appropriate or not, for fear of being labeled typewriter-toting troglodytes if they don't. I don't have a problem with video -- I like it, especially the idea of live streaming broadband Webcasts. It's the podcasts that I think are truly moronic. A podcast is nothing different than some person from the 1970s handing you a cassette (or an 8-track) and saying, "Here is an analog recording of a show we taped yesterday, and you can listen to it any time you want. Cool, huh?" Which would be stupid. The only reason newspaper Web sites are in love with it is because it's a digital recording. But in most cases the content is no newer than what's on newsprint, and a lot of times even less so.

 

I'm 40 and never watch videos, other than the occasional YouTube link emailed by someone.

When I click on ESPN.com the first thing I do is turn off that fucking video link. If I want to watch television and hear that shit, I'll turn on THE television and not some reduced version.

The following is dead solid perfect.

 

I have no problems with podcasts. Most podcasts I've seen aren't breaking news, but more featury/analysis stuff that stay relevant longer. So yes, it does make sense to have a recording of those kind of content that I can listen to at my convenience. And no, it's not like a cassette or an 8-track, given the difference in size of the player, portability, storage capacity, and number of different settings in which the content can be consumed (on your computer, in your car, while jogging with your iPod, etc.). And even if the content isn't any newer than what's on newsprint, I can listen to a podcast while work, driving, or running, I can't, or at least shouldn't, read a newspaper while doing those things.