Johnathan, you are exactly right. Just becuase we have a new way to communicate doesn't mean we should forget eveything we learned about good communications using previous methods. One of these lessons is to make the communications interesting. Talking heads, for the most part, are not that interesting.

The increasing importance of mobile delivery of video is going to affect video composition. Alas, the nature of wireless delivery and screen size will cause many producers to create more talking heads, not less. Talking heads are technically easier.

What is necessary for mobile video is to seriously consider creating multiple versions of a video, with different editing and even scene selection to optimize for mobile. A hint of the problem can be seen on YouTube videos on a relatively slow connection.

The backup plan, if mobile web and applications are any indication, will be to make all the videos more mobile friendly. And more cuts, fewer pans, fewer panoramas, and more talking heads. Alas.

Just by sheer coincidence the Boston Globe is running an article this morning about colleges that are applying Web 2.0 tactics to their admissions efforts: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/01/07/colleges_turn_to_web_tools_in_hunt_for_08_freshmen/

The author notes that even small colleges seem to be ahead of many Fortune 500 companies in the use of social media, podcasts, videos, etc. But to my thinking, this makes good marketing sense. Many Fortune 500 companies don't have an immediate need for this media, but in education, the conditions are ripe: they have a tech-savvy audience; they need tools that make the college experience come alive; they have to pursue methods that feel more authentic than brochures and other traditional recruiting devices.

Barbara: Good point about size restrictions. You wonder though, if the right move in these circumstances is to abandon ordinary "live" video for animation, rather than go with video for its own sake.

I think it's a good reminder that these tools can be used more effectively. But I think we also have to remember that many of these people are completely new to video. Now all it takes is a Flip and in a few minutes, you can have video on your blog. It's like any other tool, I think we get better at it the more we use it.

BTW Ann love the pic from The Princess Bride!

As I said in this space the other day ( http://www.mpdailyfix.com/2008/01/blog_vids_yes_no_maybe.html ), shorter is usually better when it comes to video. If the video tells a story, such as in the example you gave, not so short won't seem overly long. It's about holding attention, and stories well told hold our attention.

I liked the HBS video quite a bit -- thanks for flagging it, Jonathan. That said, I also like the tutorials that Matt Dickman is producing, the short bits CK does, the commentaries of Chris Brogan and Steve Garfield and Scott Monty, and the video bits of Laura Fitton, to name but a tiny fraction of the "talking head" approach.

In other words, I don't see talking heads as inherently bad, and stories as inherently good. They are different approaches, with different objectives.

Ann:

Good point. Though I think that while the talking head approach seems easier to execute, it may be more difficult to fulfill: for it to work, you really need someone who is charismatic and/or projects well into a camera.

What I definitely don't want to see -- yet anticipate as inevitable -- is a slew of narcissistic "message from the president" videos that flatter executive egos without providing any substance to prospects or customers.

I agree with you on that one -- the "message from the president" delivered from a behind a desk would be deadly. That's very different than the "commentary" talking head videos, some of which (as I said above) I quite like.

Jonathan,

Ann is right in that it depends on what our audience wants and needs.

David and I talked about this last week and agreed the last thing our audience, clients or community want is a to waste time watching us talking to a camera. Same is true for my clients' customers. On the other hand, there are those who can produce nice work by standing or sitting in front of their viewers because their viewers are visiting them and not necessarily visiting to get something specific from the content or their message.

As for me, I think anything less than strong content using story-telling techniques is not necessarily good for our business and its audience but may be fine for our virtual and real-life associates.

Video is a funny thing. Especially since, as David Reich pointed out last week, we’ve been spoiled by sophisticated TV videos. And yet take YouTube, the majority of videos there aren’t glitzy, well-thought stories. Nope, they are man/woman/guy/girl with a videocam that is just a “talking head”. And those “talking heads” have amassed audiences and entire communities—and communities are what 2.0 is all about.

Being an era of “authenticity”, it appears that regular old folks—which is, 99% of America, and I assume most of the world—many people have taken to the authenticity of these vids. It’s all sorts of ironic but, I guess people are tired of plastic celebs and contrived story lines. (I for one am very tired of celebs, but that’s a whole different post ;-).

But you’re clearly talking business-oriented videos (meaning, videos from professionals). You say you see this as “a big step backwards”. I disagree. I see experimenting with ANY new tool or technology as always a big step forward. How else do we learn and innovate? Having been a professional through Web 1.0 (not just 2.0) I remember well the experimentations…some soared, some sank—and that’s how we learned and formed best practices. And, like I said in David’s post, I’m not about to tell people—consumers or professionals—“unless you do this, that and the other, don’t try video”. Why limit expression when that’s what bolsters this medium? And when audiences can easily decide to not push play? We now have more choice, not less.

But I agree that either a story--or a premise like Matt Dickman does--is best. As Jennifer Jones commented in David Reich’s post: “The story makes it come alive.” I also find that the personality of the vidcaster makes these come alive, too. That said, I really think we're finding our way with video for the most part. First we needed the courage to launch blogs or sign-up to social networking sites, right now the step is to try video (or not).

Experimentation is good and there are no hard & fast rules, although we can benefit from past experience with video, even if the medium where it's being carried is different.

I can't say I see eye-to-eye (or video-to-video) with CK one this one.

Let's take You Tube for example. Yeah, there's tons of authentic (for better or worse) stuff out there. But what percentage of it can be truly said to have "amassed audiences and entire communities"? A very small one, I suspect.

As far as business practices go, I simply have to do more for my clients than suggest that they experiment. They have too much real money and jobs at stake to try something just for the sake of trying it. To do justice to them, I'm compelled to make recommendations based on sound business reasoning. What's likely to work? Why? How can we execute for maximum impact at minimal cost? How do we plan, test, measure, monitor and make adjustments?

I have no beef with amateurs playing with video on You Tube -- that's part of what the Internet is all about. But business isn't about self-expression; it's about creating results. If we're to go about this in a truly professional way, we have to make business cases for our suggestions.

@Jonathan. I hear you and no need to always see eye-to-eye. I too have clients with much at stake. They also have competitors and need to grow, even if they're doing great currently.

Experimenting doesn't mean that there isn't planning behind it. It means experimenting with new tools in efforts to create value and differentiate your brand (and a brand is a way of expressing the co's value/differentiators, many would say a brand gives the company a distinct personality and I'd agree).

Anytime a company launches, say, its first website, first blog, first video, it's experimenting. Yes, there is a plan and objectives (and a script/message points)...but since it's the first of its kind, it qualifies as "experimenting"--being the co. has never done it before. (And since 2.0 is still new, many have never done this before.)

And I have to encourage my clients to experiment--yes, with a plan--as that's how they grow. Be that experimenting with new tools/tech, new offerings or delving into new markets with new uses for their existing offerings. Now, do I say, "hey, you've done great in B2B, so let's switch to B2C for an experiment!". Of course not--I do my homework first. But, just as with a current client in the past two years, their offering has had applications across several business sectors...so we've been entering those one at a time. Since they've never been in that market before, it is an experiment (tho' we certainly did our research homework first).

And for one sector, social media is a way to penetrate the market and differentiate them--using both a blog and videos.

Jonathan - Love the points you make here. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

More importantly, there are plenty of free tools that allow you to edit. Windows Movie Maker for example comes bundled with a PC and iMovie for Mac (if I recall correctly).

The production value might not be up to professional, but the focus on story in my opinion will get you some leeway in this regard.

Matt is right. Look, I'm neck deep into this online video stuff on many levels (new web show coming soon, yes talking head format).

It's really, really, really early. The stories will come once the technology allows people to easily create more videos. Look at blogging as an example... except doing video is 100 times harder then signing up for a blogspot account and typing something.

This is all gonna take a lot of time.

Ann? When will be able to post up our own video posts here on MP?

And please, please, please, can you add a subscribe to comments on these posts so I can keep up on the conversations in the comments? I always forget to come back and check for new comments.

Please?

Per Jonathan's comment of: "Though I think that while the talking head approach seems easier to execute, it may be more difficult to fulfill: for it to work, you really need someone who is charismatic and/or projects well into a camera."

I agree that (most times) you need charisma...BUT, it also depends upon audience. And here's the perfect example: a project I'm working on in patient safety is squarely focused on doctors and healthcare administrators. These are VERY left-brained, data-driven people. That is to say, they're not performers. Not so high up on the charisma, ya know? But they trust the reccs from each other because those reccs are based upon studies and pilot programs.

And they're prone to watch vids from other docs/administrators becuz they provide value. Just like I'm prone to watch Matt's videos because they save me time and it's from a trusted source...but I wouldn't necessarily say that either of these video types tell a "story," they communicate best practices, new technologies or new opportunities--but they don't really tell a story.

CK inadvertently touches on one of the greatest risks of online video: doing it badly.

It's one thing for "amateurs" to have badly conceived and executed videos (e.g. YouTube)

But it's embarrassing for a major league organization to put out something that looks like it was put together by the high school drama club.

"Storytelling" is an art because so few people do it well. The risk of doing it yourself, if you are a "player" is huge.

I also wonder how many people really do want to see video on websites. It generally still takes too long to load. It requires headphones if you're at the office or somewhere where others are watching TV or listening to music.

And finally, aside from demos and illustrations of case studies (which are, in and of themselves, stories) so much of the video I see on the web seems gratuitous, like "hey, we can film something and put it up and it won't cost that much."

Yeah, I know. Problem is it looks like it.

And remember, all this is from someone who makes video (of all sorts) for a living.

Great post and especially interesting comments. I watched the HBS video and was surprised to see, ahem, quite a few talking heads. Yes, they were interspersed with great footage of students and professors preparing for class, but the anchor points of the video — storytelling aside — were still talking heads.

My full disclosure: Some 15 years ago when I was in Boston, HBS Video Series was a client. (I worked on marketing the videos, not the videos themselves.) Back then, HBS professor David Garvin was talking into the camera —just as he is today in this latest video. Simple fact is: he’s an engaging, credible speaker with rich content — so it works.