I was playing Devil’s advocate to a degree in my response; for there is a myth, promoted in some circles (mainly by those that want to sell bandwidth and/or snake oil!), that the ‘cheap ‘n’ nasty DIY video’ is fit for purpose in terms of business use. That’s something I’m keen to dispell.

Perhaps we need to re-define what production values actually are? Bearing in mind this is for the benefit of the reader rather than any attempt on either of our parts to instruct the other in the art of egg-yolk extraction by vacuum…

Back in the early days of corporate video ‘production values’ were primarily the technical cost-drivers in terms of originating in a format that stood up to the post production and distribution process to the point where the final product compared well to commercial video release…

That inevitably meant shooting on at least an industrial grade format (such as U-Matic) or more likely using full ‘top end’ broadcast standard kit with all the complexities and crew requirements that brought with it… And expense too!

Sadly; I still come across marketing lecturers who teach their students this outmoded definition of the term!

Though a certain basic technical standards remains to be met; and can only sensibly be met with the right equipment and skills… This is much more cost-effectively done these days. there are really very few situations where ‘top end’ production kit (which these days is extraordinarily capable; on a level with shooting 35mm film in some cases) is actualy justified…

These days ‘production values’ are more to do with the scripting/editorial/project management input; ensuring the product is all of safe, effective, delivered on time and on budget…

Ideally that means strong input from PR/Marketing/Comms people coupled to a methodology on the production side which protects and promotes the needs and interests of the end client; and of course everyone else involved in the programme…

If that sounds like a complex process then that’s because actually it is! But then so is servicing a modern car! Complex; but very much do-able at a reasonable price by someone who has the correct tools for the job and the skills to deploy them properly…

My point is twofold… Firstly there is no need for a programme with high editorial/production values to be expensive to produce. And secondly, OF COURSE such a programme should, as a natural part of its evolving through the production process meet the goals of being engaging and effective…

Essentially (and please do correct me if I’m wrong here) you seem to be saying that, in order to be effective, the video needs to meet a certain standard. And with that I’d wholheartedly agree. There is now and will continue to be a rising amount of ‘video chatter’ out there; much of which WON’T meet those standards, so yes, certainly to stand out among that ‘video noise’ will, of course, require a certain flair…

If people are going to engage with ANY platform on a professional level then that requires investment. And one of the more basic returns they should expect from that investment is an understanding on the part of the production team of how to engage with the target audience.

I think you misunderstand where I’m coming from. Companies need to be aware of assuming that a news outlet will run any video content that’s provided. It would be a terrible waste of money if a high production value piece of video just got a shrug from the journalist, instead of being run. I’m not suggesting companies do a cheap and nasty DIY job — I’m saying that, if video content is created, it’d better walk and talk like a piece of reportage and not a press release.

Sheila Averbuch — ENN

Much depends on what you mean by “you could film”. Unless you have the right equipment (lights camera and audio kit; circa £15K-£20K all up for some fairly basic stuff) and the skills and training to use it… And of course the equipment to post produce…

What “you” could film is a home movie! And sadly the web is littered with such DIY disasters masquerading as business video!

Then there are the legal aspects of producing a video…

And of course the more obvious production requirements; proper scripting, scheduling and project management…

With all that said there are legitimate professionals out there who can produce the sort of simple ‘news content’ type piece to a highly professional standard for less than it would cost to do a decent sized leaflet run…

The “professional, relevant piece of film” Craig talks about is a very affordable option; even for many micro-businesses. And it’s true you don’t need to adopt hollywood’s production values to communicate effectively.

But let’s not confuse that with trotting out yet another home movie and expecting it to give the sort of return Craig is talking about here…

Yet the news sources do want to run video, and want to be seen to running video, so there’s an opportunity here. I think a good example of media-friendly video would be this: say your company is exhibiting at an event. You could film an interview with an off-camera journalist who is posing questions about the product/service. Resulting video would then feel more like syndicated news content, and would probably be cheaper and easier for the company to produce that a high production value piece of video.

Sheila Averbuch – ENN