Production values debate breaks out during videologger session

The problem I see with the “grassroots people” is that they wear their poor production values as a badge of honor — so they are *misssing* the point of podcasting, blogging, vlogging, etc.

The point is the CONTENT, not the production values. Wait, does it sound like I’m switching gears? No, the content is king, but poor production values can get in the way of the message.

Poor production shouldn’t stop you from doing your thing, but it’s not something to which you should aspire (unspire?). In general, the better your production values, the easier it is for people to get the message — and that’s the most important thing, isn’t it?

Jay: I agree. But there’s a lot of things that can be communicated without spending the time on the camera, the audio, the editing.

Yeah, it can always be made better. But, watch this video of Emma and her mom. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6642002519086292079 It’s horrible. If you look at it that way. But to her family? I’ll bet it’s precious and I bet they don’t really care that it was a shaky camera, with audio that could have been better, with lighting that sucked.

Not everything has to look like a Superbowl commercial. And that’s why I love this new medium.

I agree with you Robert. Here quality of the production is not the issue. THe main issue is do people like it or not and are people interested to spend some time from their every day life or not. Video blogs will gain a momentum within just 2 years when millions and may be nearly one billion users from Asia and Africa get connected to high speed internet. The market is going to increase mutlifuld with in just 2-3 years.

Take a look at audio podcasting, which has already matured more fully than vlogging. Trust me: production values matter. It’s the values that may have changed, though. Authenticity is important, and you simply don’t *want* to sound like a commercial radio DJ. But you should balance out your volumes, for example – when I’m listening to interviews on my bike and I can’t hear one of the two persons talking because of the volume differences, I unsubscribe.

OK, is accessibility a “production value”? Microsoft has more money than God, yet the entirety of Channel 9 is, for example, uncaptioned. Oh, but that might interfere with your *immediacy*, I suppose.

Joe do you do video? Have you ever done captions? It’s very expensive and time consuming, yes. Maybe Microsoft could afford it (but then why couldn’t they pay me more than $100,000) but certainly there’s a whole raft of people out there who can’t pay around $300 a video or podcast to get transcripts done.

I feel like this debate (and the similar podcasting debate) is being phrased in terms that make it very difficult to solve.

Can you be a podcaster or vlogger (I hate that word) with poor production qualities?

Can you be a blogger who can’t spell or punctuate?

Of course. Will you be a better blogger, podcaster, or vlogger when you have a greater command of the medium? All other things equal, yes.

Dave has a ton of people who listen to his podcast… not because of it’s poor production values but INSPITE OF IT. There are plenty of people (like me) who do not listen because of the dead air (etc).

Would Dave have more listeners if he did a little editing? I think so. At least one more.

To me it seems like the issue is more that podcasters and vloggers are either too lazy to do some editing (which may be fine, depending on their audience) or they don’t know how, so instead of learning they prefer to jump up on a soapbox about how it’s unimportant.

Sure, sure, there’s a law of diminishing returns… how many more listeners/viewers does that extra hour of production work get you?

But it seems counter-intuitive to suggest that having a more watchable/listenable show is going to hurt you.

I’m with you 100% on this buddy. And the example I’ve often used is to point to hollywood. Nine times out of ten I’d rather watch a film with a great story but basic production values over… the latest Michael Bay film (whatever that happens to be). And let’s face it – the reason podcasting has exploded isn’t because we were all sitting home thinking “gee the production values on mainstream media plain suck”. It was a lack of interesting content. Now, since I started G’Day World a couple of years ago I’ve upgraded my mic from the $20 headset to something that cost me slightly more… and I bought some additional equipment as well. But mainly because it saves me significant post-production time (GIGO). Someone told me recently how Rocketboom’s success has to do with the fact they shoot it (apparently) on HD. I told him I couldn’t tell the difference on my iPod.

I’m with you 100% on this buddy. And the example I’ve often used is to point to hollywood. Nine times out of ten I’d rather watch a film with a great story but basic production values over… the latest Michael Bay film (whatever that happens to be). And let’s face it – the reason podcasting has exploded isn’t because we were all sitting home thinking “gee the production values on mainstream media plain suck”. It was a lack of interesting content. Now, since I started G’Day World a couple of years ago I’ve upgraded my mic from the $20 headset to something that cost me slightly more… and I bought some additional equipment as well. But mainly because it saves me significant post-production time (GIGO). Someone told me recently how Rocketboom’s success has to do with the fact they shoot it (apparently) on HD. I told him I couldn’t tell the difference on my iPod.

Saying production values don’t matter in video is like saying good writing doesn’t matter in an article or an essay. No matter the medium, you need to be articulate.

What so-called videoblogging is doing is recreating cable access crap on an extremely large scale. Nothing on the 150 professional cable channels? Great. Now you’ve got 150,000 cable access shows to choose from.

Wheeeeeee!

Take a moment to consider audio quality from the perspective of the listener. What do podcasts give me? Choice. I can choose from a world full of content – and I can choose when and where I want to consume it.

Unfortunately, “when and where” is most often while driving, on public transport, or walking noisy streets. And if I can’t hear it, I exercise my choice: “Next!”

It’s not about being “fancy”. If I can’t hear your podcast, I won’t cry over it. There is more quality content out there than I can ever hope to consume. “Next!”

Rebort: sorry, you’re missing what’s going on here. Emma’s parents would never have been able to get her on a cable access channel. This is much deeper and broader than that. Not to mention that I don’t have a cable access channel to distribute my crap on.

Production values require committees?

Not always…and usually only with dsyfunctional organizations (not much a surprise at Microsoft).

Production values require TALENT and know-how.

I turn my Events/Weddings/Bar and Bat Mitzvahs/Corporate Marketing Rot shoots into works of Hollywood art, and I am only one person out of two. And I do it fast too, (thanks Ultimate S 2). All Hail Douglas Spotted Eagle (my guru of sorts).

Poor quality only means poor quality. You can blog without knowing how to write. You can vblog without knowing the basics of production, handheld shaky cam with bad audio in tow. Heck, freedom. But the better you write, and the better your production values the more attention you will get. Quite simple, yes?

Channel 9 is niche. Some lower two-thirds, some serious editing, with some DECENT audio, and narrational VO’s, with a Steadicam feel…well you might have gotten MORE of an audience. I could have turned that place around, single-handedly, and that’s no idle boast.

Your on10 is much better, but then it’s headachey MTV jump-cut short attention span, pointless stupid geek tricks bugs me to no end, makes my teeth hurt. But then I am not the target audience, so can’t fault them for ‘style’.

Nothing WRONG with the smallish Indy’s taking on Hollywood if you will, but the first and foremost consideration is always (and will always be) quality.

Still harping on the $100,000 salary issue? Are you really that bitter about it? I guess we now know for sure why you left. You were there 3 years? Obviously then, MS didn’t see the value it got from your Channel 9 duties and your off hours blogging to put a “face on Microsoft” as being worth more than $100,000 to them. Which is a very interesting commentary when you place it up against your perceived worth to MS.

As for the “production” issue. Well, on the one hand I guess al-Queda is able to get its point across with low-quality videos. (Nick Berg, etc). Is that the level you are aspiring to? I’m not sure “committees” are required for good, high quality production videos. Spielberg was able to turn our some pretty good stuff while he was in film school. I don’think he had a committee for that.

You’re fooling yourself if you think quality doesn’t matter, particulary if you want to be making money at the end of the day. Your message will get lost in the distraction of the poor quality as people will be focused on how horrible the production is. Now if you want to be a parody of yourself and people watch and listen BECAUSE of how horrible it is, I guess that could be good entertainment value. Sort of like the old SCTV show. That might work. I don’t think that is what you are going for, though. How much extra work does it take to make sure you are well editied and well scripted? Sounds like you don’t want to put in the effort.

When I shot a comedy in college, we used a webcam with no external mic and fixed it up with a semi-legal copy of Adobe Premier.

It was awful. Could hardly hear anyone, video was grainy, soundtracking and voiceover constantly drowned out sound. And it brought down the house.

Because we didn’t waste our time talking to a bunch of other filmmakers about production values. Instead we made something clever.

I love hearing about these useless arguments at conferences — they keep the boring people too busy to make movies.

Did you even read that NTY link you referenced? It’s not talking about videoblogging (I’m going to take a shower, now. I hate referencing that term.), it’s talking about “viral video”, which are two completely different things in my mind. Youtube seems to be a medium that allows people to show their goofy movies, something kids and others have been doing ever since the Super 8 movie camera was invented. The only thing we have no is the ability for advertisers to try to ride along side the popular downloads. And why are those downloads popular? Hmmm..I dunno…maybe because they are well done, well edited and fun to watch, as opposed to some nattering dweeb bloviating about some unimportant subject? Just a guess.

Oh, and getting back to the “production question”, did you even happen to read the first paragraphs of that article:

Plan: Think about where you’re shooting from and where the action is.
Edit: Keep the action interesting; only include what’s essential.
Frame: Get closer to what you are filming so that viewers can see detail.

Please don’t tell me you are defining vblogging as any video that is put on the internet to be downloaded.

I love hearing about these useless arguments at conferences — they keep the boring people too busy to make movies.

Ohmigosh. Quote of the Week.

If its not at a decent standard I move on quickly – however interesting it may be its not worth the effort.

But a key thing you should be thinking about is the future value of the material you create. If its badly recorded (shaky camera, poor sound quality) it has no value in ten years time for a tv show or xyz medium yet to be invented.

Your pension may be hidden away in some of the material you create today (its just that at this moment you can’t know what will pay out in the end).

Its how old school photographers and film-makers worked…

Ok, So my biggest complaint about some of the vidcasts that I watch is format. we have .wmv, .mov and m4v many more to name. I sometimes like to watch vidasts on my PDA which in most cases only supports .wmv. I think we need to consider what is the base format like mp3 is for podcasting. Or concider having .mov and .wmv if you are going to do video. Just my two cents. That way you may have even more viewers if you do multiple formats for all systems.

Using podcasting to express yourself is an incredible thing, and one that should not be dismissed. But spending time with the goal of quality is something people appreciate. It’s why the iPod has market share. Design takes time. Not a committee, just time. Our show is one where we spend hours to produce minutes of video. That’s not hours of shooting and editing, that’s hours of researching, planning, and writing because we care about entertaining our audience.

Hah. You know what’s funny? This reminds me of something entirely different. When I was a kid, I was an avid skateboard fan. I couldn’t skate to save my life but I loved watching my friends do it and we all loved watching skate videos.

Let me tell you something about 80s skateboarding videos. They absolutely sucked. They were horrendous, shaky handheld camera affairs with grainy pictures and crappy resolution (yes! Just like vidblogs ). Proper cameras and editing equipment were expensive and few skateboarding companies really had the people in-house that knew how to use them. We didn’t mind, it was simply the best they could provide at the time. So the quality was dodgy, you could hardly recognize the skaters, we paid a ridiculous price for the tapes, but it was still skateboarding. We didn’t mind.

Now it’s 2006 and guess what? There’s still skateboarding videos, but they’re different now. The subject hasn’t changed, it’s still people doing what they love doing. But the quality has improved a 10000-fold. Equipment and software has become readily available, why not use it? And as a consumer, I’ve changed. If it doesn’t look good from the start, I will fast forward it. If it doesn’t look good further in, click – it dissapears. Why? With the current products available, noone has to make a shitty skateboarding video anymore. If you do, it’s because you’re lazy, not because you’re the cool underdog who’se rebelling against the man.

What am I trying to say with this whole comment? Crappy production value is okay, as long as you realize it’s because you have no other choice due to time constraints/money/work/etc. But when you do have the possibility to make things look better, and you’re still using that excuse, you’re hiding.

I can’t believe that people actually think that the issue is production values. As if being good at something and taking time and care with it and trying to make it as good (for your audience) as possible is actually an evil, corporate thing to do. I’ve dumped a lot of podcast feeds because even though the content was promising the lack of quality (particularly varying sound levels) made listening to them unbearable. I mostly listen to public radio stuff from around the world now – the content is great and the production value is high. The other good source of stuff is taped events like speeches. Anyone who thinks its cool to listen to unscripted (and how are you doin?) stuff has got way too much time on their hands.

It’s surprising how much I can learn from this blog. Between the comments, content, and links I’d have it made if I knew how to use a computer. Production, content, Video Art(VART?), at least I’m not giving up, and allowing myself that learning curve. I could use some feed back on my last post. Not the site it’s junked. This was with a logitech and movie maker. Plus, I didn’t infringe on another artist’s rights.

Hmm

Ime with the quality crowd some of the audio quality in podcasting is dire a couple of basic shures and a decent soudcard and a baby mixer wont break the bank.

Oh and lives notch filter is great for killing nasty mains hum.

also to do serious video you may well be looking at 2-3 cameras if you want to cover an interviewer and the subject plus posibly a wide shot.

The prosumer sonys are only 2-3 k which is the minimum I would consider using for a company doing vloging.