Readers: How interested in video are they, really?

I think it depends on which side of the new school/old school fence you fall on. We're a decent size circ paper and just started doing it this year. It's getting plenty of hits, but we mostly concentrate on prep sports and the like. Like one poster said already, the kids like it and the parents enjoy it because that's another chance to see little Johnny shoot a basketball.

I think if you can get a sponser to run an ad before it, it could help bring in revenue to the site if done well. I think it's a good way to encourage overall growth of a paper and gets more eyes on the product. We did a lot of stuff during football season and shot some basketball and hockey stuff in the winter.

Of course, there's just one guy editing and shooting all the video (Do more with less), so there's not as much video for everyone to go around. That needs to be take care of.

I don't think it works at every paper. I think it might be interesting to watch a video from some beat guys from various papers on the pro beats, but I think it works better locally. Like another person said on here, I'd probably go to the big boy sites if I wanted insight on the Lakers rather than what the Podunk Press beat guy thinks.

 

PC nailed it. Television production is an art folks work at for an entire career.

Another problem for sports video in the mid to large markets is rights. The only thing a newspaper generally has the rights to put on its website is a gang bang (or presser).

(A) Big Whoop.
(B) Even that's going to be a 'right' soon.

 

Interesting study about online video:

http://www.ipsosinsight.com/pressrelease.aspx?id=3941

 

I have to do a couple videos a week now. For background purposes, I'm not a dinosaur and I'm adept with techie stuff -- I put audio on my blog, have built rudimentary websites.

The problem as I see it is that no one gets any training. Our photogs can point and shoot, but don't always get into the storytelling behind the video. The reporters might, but they aren't taught how to use the editing equipment. It's a kind of assembly line production that only works when the reporter and photographer work well together.

And the photogs have assignments backed up like airplanes for takeoff, no one can sit down together to put the thing together. We want the video, but it's about quantity -- Hey, look at all the video we're doing! -- rather than the storytelling.

On the plus side, I think the trial by fire may ultimately make us a better news organization, when we start picking our spots a little better.

 

I think that videos do get looked at online. YouTube wouldn't be such a major player if they didn't.

However, I'm a believer in showing ourselves in a good light. And if we put embarrassingly bad video up there, people think the newspaper is staffed by rubes.

Do it professionally ... or don't do it at all. It's not a case of something bad being better than nothing. It's worse.

 

Publishing types need to recognize that quality video news production for the web requires the same commitment of people, time and resources as print news. Until then, we're stuck with a point-and-shoot mentality that will never pass muster with readers or a real business plan.

 

Yeah, but most of the videos being viewed on YouTube are things that would never make it on a newspaper website such as people making asses of themselves/ doing stupid things or video clips stolen from TV shows (anything that would be considered a copyright infringement that newspapers can't legally or ethically touch)

 

Which is why my paper's fortunate to have a full-time video guy, though I can't say I've actually looked at anything he's done.