I think Jo Swinson MP gives a charming example here

http://www.yoosk.com/browse-answer-celebrity/265.aspx

But that’s also *absolutely true* and hard to refute. So the answer must lie in lowering expectations of quality, and it needs a shift in attitudes for big organisations like ours from controlling information tightly (well edited and scripted video) to just participating honestly and openly (glitchy handheld video).

@Jeremy: I know - what do you have to put on YouTube to get related videos of girls in g-strings? Answer: ministerial messages, apparently

@Simon: absolutely - the extra challenge I have is even when we have something moderately interesting to film, that can get lost a bit in poor recording/editing.

@Justin: absolutely - maybe you should try a a video résumé (the logical conclusion to video skills in CVs, I guess).

@Shane & @Stuart: Agreed - I think my conclusion from this is that we’re not yet at a stage in terms of skills, people and software where this kind of work can be done well in-house. Sure, we can work on those things, but you’re right that there’s some stuff you just need to involve the experts with. Maybe what I should have asked is where the line lies these days between the kind of interesting, informal films Simon talks about and the more complex projects where a proper editor would come into their own?

Incidentally, since posting, I’ve discovered a really nice example of video as a community’s response to a consultation on Post Office closure (hat tip: Podnosh)

I liked your list of reasons for using video. For me, the good reasons for using video are:

- to tell stories (video can be brilliant for this)
- to engage emotions and the non-rational side to people
- to explain difficult concepts visually
- to demonstrate tacit knowledge (things that are difficult or impossible to write down, but which can be shown visually)
- to appeal to people with visual and auditory learning styles
- to show unique people, places or events

There is a lot that people with basic skills can already do with a video camera and a computer, and it will only get better as the hardware and software become easier to use and more affordable. You Tube or Scoble-type impromptu interviews with people who are inherently interesting can be successfully shot by people with little or no training.

But…I think you analogy with typing and PowerPoint doesn’t quite work for me the way you intended. Sure, millions of people create PowerPoint presentations every day, but millions of those presentations are absolutely awful. They don’t have a structure, they don’t tell a story, their messages aren’t clear, images don’t complement the text, and they try to cram everything in without being selective. Very few people have the skills to create a PowerPoint presentation that is really memorable. In the same way, some types of video can perfectly well be shot and edited by non-specialists, but other types need a range of skills that only specialists who keep their skills up-to-date with constant practice can achieve (the point that Shane makes in his comment).

You’ve given a great list of the practical skills that video-makers need in order to do their job well (many of which are project management skills too - 80% of the job of a producer like me is project and client management). From my point of view as a video maker the more communications professionals who have these skills the better. When they need to bring me in as a professional, they will be much better able to brief me, be able to add more value and more of their own (workable) ideas, and be better at managing the expectations of the internal Important People. Sometimes they will choose to create their videos by themselves, but I think there will always be times when it makes sense to bring in a specialist too.

Simon is right that the subject is the most important but without the skills it is very easy to screw up even the best interviewee. And although I’m with him on the vapidity of many corporate videos, most of the well watched YouTubers have understood the need to throw light on a subject and make sure that a decent mic picks up their voice without a vast array of background noises.

Justin may well have the requisite skills but organisations need to be careful about in-house production. Isolation when editing is important. Lock the director away for the day required and pass food and drink through a hatch until they are finished. Is that isolation easy achieved onsite? It is easy to get too close to the material so that your judgement on selecting shots is compromised. Are you using shots because you took them or because they make the story better, more engaging?

Not every film needs to be outsourced but I’d counsel against taking it all inside just because you’ve got the kit. They are specialised skills and they need using regularly to keep them sharp.

Good post. I can empathise with a lot of the difficulties you’ve outlined. I’m not sure that the description of a ‘proper film-maker’ is entirely accurate though - whilst there is a lot of cross over in the industry, you’ve pretty much described a production team, not an individual (although this is changing as well). Your key point about telling a good and convincing story is spot-on and an absolute necessity. As is Simon’s about ensuring the speaker is up to the job (possibly more difficult if it’s a senior official asking).

The one thing I think you’ll find is that a lot of these skills may already exist in communication teams/organisations, it’s just a matter of tracking down the right people. As these skills haven’t always been considered a main-stream requirement for communications and press work, staff traditionally draw attention to achievements in other areas. My career in comms has pretty much been about stakeholder relations, advertising, strategic advice and project management; I don’t often mention my degree in screenwriting, the multi-media company I ran or the corporate videos I helped develop - perhaps with the increasing use of online video, I should!

Any time you see a ‘home-made’ video attempt to do it ‘properly’ - with cutaways, captions, background music, even (gulp) transition effects - it just shows up the fact that it isn’t a proper video.

(Not that doing a ‘proper’ video is something to aspire for, anyway. There’s nothing more tired than the slick, professional corporate video. More often than not, an opening burst of muzak is enough to make me click elsewhere.)

Whereas, the stuff I find myself watching to the end is the ‘rough cut’ stuff, as pioneered by Robert Scoble whilst at Microsoft’s Channel 9. Go and visit someone interesting, turn on your video camera, and ask - so, what’s going on?

Honest, direct, disintermediated - in precisely the way the best blogs, or perhaps more accurately, the best bloggers are honest, direct and disintermediated.

So yes, fair enough, there are certain production skills and knowledge needed to get the job done. But at the end of the day, you need to be pointing the camera at someone who’s capable of talking.