"the present and future of an exciting industry"
March 31, 2011 Leave a comment
By VideoJournalismOnline
What’s in store for online video journalism? It’s a question we’ve had in mind as we’ve researched and written about the topic.
So here Alex Dibble asks Ross Cullen, Emily Craig and Toby Coaker for their predictions about the future of VJO:
March 24, 2011 Leave a comment
A ruling published earlier this week revealed that the Authority for Television on Demand could gain the power to regulate the video content of online newspapers.
ATVOD, the body responsible for regulating the Television on Demand services offered via the likes of BBC iPlayer, 4OD and ITV Player, could be soon be able to regulate the video content on the online version of newspapers as well.
Newspaper providers are arguing that they should be exempt from this regulation. They feel the ruling should apply only to “TV-like” content, rather than the more journalistic and news-based content they offer.
These papers, which include The Sun, The Sunday Times, News of the World and Elle, are now appealing to Ofcom to try and have the decision rescinded.
If their appeal is rejected, it means that the newspapers and magazines affected would have to pay an annual sum to ATVOD for the regulation of their online services.
Those that fail to pay this fee could face fines of up to £250,000 and have their video offerings suspended.
What is interesting about this development is that it means, for the first time, the UK press will come under an external regulator’s control (it is currently self-regulated by the PCC).
Papers looking to expand their online video content in the future could now face a far greater challenge than broadcasters, whose news content does not fall under the same regulation.
This story highlights some of the issues that can occur when news organisations take their services to a new platform, and it shows some of the complexities found in online regulation.
This story is likely to develop throughout the coming weeks, but if you want to know more, head on over to the ATVOD website for more details.
March 22, 2011 Leave a comment
A graphic demonstrating the growth in the video journalism online market (Creative Commons licence)
By Emily Craig
The Internet has opened up huge opportunities for journalism, but it has also exploded our understanding of what journalism is. Now print editors and broadcasters alike are trying to figure out how they can monetise their online operation. The problem? How to get people to pay for what they have up till now been enjoying for free. Advertising is one way of making money. So the question is – can video journalism pay for itself and, beyond that, even turn a profit?
Video journalism of all different types is attracting people online, but it appears that advertisers are not yet willing to bank on it. This means – as a general rule – that online advertising is currently cheaper than the print equivalent.
To put it another way: advertisers don’t yet want to abandon the full-page ad in the national daily for a banner ad around the edge of a video; at least, they’re not going to choose the latter in place of the former. This is despite the fact that it’s much cheaper to advertise online – it’s tens of pounds for an online newspaper ad and thousands of pounds for a print equivalent.
In a discussion about the future of newspapers on Newsnight last month, Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, claimed that video is becoming more and more important to newspapers. But he also said that the newspaper’s print edition (with a circulation of approximately 270 000) brings in more advertising revenue than guardian.co.uk (boasting more than 2, 250,000 daily users). For broadcasters and newspapers alike, there is still more ad revenue in the ‘old’ media.
But as more and more people opt to visit a newspaper’s website instead of buying its print edition and as the number of online news outlets increases, advertisers might express greater interest. In fact, video journalism presents advertisers with a particular opportunity. Whilst it’s easier for someone reading a website article to scroll past advertising, video can offer advertisers a better chance of securing a captive audience. A pre-roll video advertisement, screened before a video, can’t be skipped. Alternatively, adverts can be embedded around a video – so-called banner ads – and the viewer can’t avoid these adverts without the video disappearing from view.
YouTube earns most of its advertising revenue via these display banners and it claims that 35% of its visitors have purchased something they’ve seen advertised on the site. The likes of YouTube and Ustream also allow their video producers to sell ads around their content.
Video advertising is not without its risks. As Ashkan Karbasfrooshen, who set up video entertainment website WatchMojo, explains, ‘when it comes to ad-supported models, marketers will never feel 100% comfortable advertising alongside user-generated content’. 50% of YouTube videos have been commented on – and nobody seems to be defending the standard of contributions.
So the idea is that advertisers want professional content. And whilst most of YouTube’s videos don’t fit this description, the business of professional journalism is in a position to benefit. The more that newspapers and broadcasters spend on producing interesting, informative and entertaining video content, the more likely it is that advertisers will want to target their audience.
The New York Times offers advertisers the chance to sponsor its ‘latest and most newsworthy’ online videos. Perhaps most importantly, one advertiser is guaranteed 100% SOV (Share of Voice) so their advert will be the only one to appear in front of the viewer. The advertiser’s monthly sponsorship includes a 15 second pre-roll video advert before the first and fourth videos on nytimes.com. They’re required to produce more than one version of an advert, so the same adverts will not appear back to back.
With this approach The New York Times recognises that its online readers do not expect to be exposed to a barrage of competing adverts when they view video content. But in this case, less can mean more. With fewer adverts, there is less danger of the viewer becoming bored and distracted. The thinking is that the discerning consumer of high-quality video content is a potentially valuable customer – the typical NYT reader is educated, well-travelled and wealthy. A case in point, the car company Jaguar is currently providing adverts for video.nytimes.com.
Newspapers and broadcasters are in a strong position to monetise online video, as long as advertisers are assured that they’re attaching their brand to professional content. But at a time when most newspapers (and some broadcasters) are facing an uncertain future, crippled by financial losses, how many will take the risk and spend money to make money?
March 21, 2011 2 Comments
By Alex Dibble
Some news media are missing a trick when it comes to gathering citizen journalism
The image above shows the iPhone apps for BBC News and Sky News. They’re both designed well, with a ‘user friendly’ interface which makes navigation easy and brings the top stories to smartphone users in an instant.
Another interesting feature of these two apps can be seen here:
Both include an option to send your own story to the newsroom. But, crucially the Sky News app allows you to attach a video (as the image below shows), while the BBC equivalent facilitates just photos.
Does this give Sky a significant advantage?
It’s difficult to tell. So far, 2011’s been the year of citizen journalism (in terms of video at least).
The uprisings in North Africa, as well as the natural disasters in New Zealand and Japan have made for some incredible footage being filmed on mobile phones.
But if you’re on the rooftop of a building in Ishinomaki filming the tsunami as it engulfs the city, where would you post the footage?
These days, if you want the world to see what you’ve just recorded, your best bet is either TwitVid or YouTube. If the footage is ‘good’ enough it’ll be seen by news media and used for broadcast.
So for Sky to provide a video uploading facility on their iPhone app doesn’t pay off when major events are occuring overseas.
But what about happenings within the UK?
We all know that when it comes to consuming news most of the public have one provider they tend to stick with.
Whether it be the BBC, Sky, ITV, Channel 4 or any other, loyalty keeps most consumers consuming from one source.
So if, for example, a newsworthy event was captured on an iPhone belonging to a Sky News fan, there’s a good chance they’d want to give Sky News exclusive access to that footage. And so the video uploader on Sky’s app would come in handy.
When it comes to loyalty and news consumption though, the public is ‘defined’ more by the newspaper they buy.
But despite being increasingly concerned with online video content in recent years, none of the major daily’s in this country provide a platform for user generated content on their smartphone apps.
On the Guardian’s app, for example, you can’t upload a photo, let alone a video.
With user loyalty such an ingrained part of news consumption in the UK, the BBC as well as the newspapers are missing a trick.
When Sky’s given that one clip – the exclusive video that transfixes the nation – the BBC and daily papers will regret they haven’t provided their own consumers with a means to send similar footage from their smart phones.
March 18, 2011 Leave a comment
By Emily Craig
Jacqui Timberlake was emphatic. ‘We are a broadcaster’, she declared to the assembled audience. And the Production Manager of Guardian Films has good reason to make this claim. Guardian Films’ 2006 production, Baghdad: A Doctor’s Story, which screened on the BBC and HBO, won an Emmy.
The film is a 45 minute offering and, in the days before many people uploaded or streamed video online, it was made for TV. It’s possible to find excerpts of Baghdad: A Doctor’s Story on the Guardian’s website, but it wasn’t designed as an internet documentary.
Back in 2006, the Guardian Films team had pitched their idea to the BBC. Now, says Maggie O’ Kane, the Editorial Director of Guardian Films, they’re competing with the same broadcasters that they relied upon before.
Broadcast journalists are not the only ones out on the street with a camera (Creative Commons)
Maggie O’ Kane had pushed for the creation of Guardian Films in the days before video journalism had become an online phenomenon. As one of the newspaper’s foreign correspondents, who spent time in the likes of Burma and Afghanistan, she says broadcast journalists would come to her and her colleagues, after they’d been working on a story, and expect to be handed a list of names and contacts so they could follow up with a film piece.
When the BBC’s Fergal Keane did just that after she’d endured the discomfort of the Burmese jungle as part of her research for a G2 feature, Maggie O Kane asked the question of Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger: ‘Why aren’t the Guardian making films?’
As a result of their conversation, Guardian Films was created. And, with the development of Internet technology, its focus has shifted from TV features to the newspaper’s website. Now Guardian Films produce videos to tie in with articles that appear in the newspaper and, simultaneously, on guardian.co.uk.
Many of their videos could be described as investigative. As Maggie O Kane put it, by incorporating video into a piece of journalism, ‘It’s a way of saying ‘This is important”. Their undercover report into the racist violence of the English Defence League is an example of this theory in action. The video appeared on the Guardian’s website as the print edition went to press with the story in article form on the front page, above the fold. And the newspaper ensured maximum coverage by publishing the story on the day that the EDL planned to stage another demo in Newcastle. The video has had some 195 000 views – and counting.
Sometimes, the Guardian Films team will write the article accompanying their video. The rest of the time, they link up with journalists on the paper. But Maggie O’ Kane admitted that ‘it can be a case of the left hand not talking to the right hand’. Recently they were forced to work solidly for 48 hours in order to make sure that their Wikileaks Iraq log video could be uploaded alongside a print story due to be published.
The Guardian Film team insist that video media is not only a compliment to online copy, but it can be a way of introducing the viewer to a story. In other words, the video can come first – it’s not a badly-produced afterthought.
And the other bonus of making videos exclusively for the paper’s website – and not for a broadcaster – is that the videos exist in ‘web perpetuity’. Newspapers own this distinct advantage over the likes of the BBC and C4.
And, whilst this was an event promoting the output of Guardian Films, more and more newspapers (the New York Times, for one) are eager to draw attention to their investment in multimedia journalism and their successes in pursuing it. Their message? Broadcasters beware.
February 20, 2011 Leave a comment
By Emily Craig
Press journalists are being forced to adapt to the new media environment and now they’re almost as likely to be dispatched on a video assignment as to be penning copy at their desks.
We’ve talked previously about how UK newspapers – even local ones – are increasingly using video to attract, or at least retain, their readers. And, as the price of video equipment continues to fall sharply, it’s now far cheaper for newspapers to cut and shoot more of their own video.
But how does a press journalist become a video journalist? After all, whilst some newspapers want (and, crucially, have the money) to recruit experts from the field, many are relying on their staffers to create video pieces. At a time when editors are seeing their budgets slashed, most of these newsroom journalists are now expected to go out, get the story, write it up for the print and online editions whilst also, on top of it all, shooting and editing a video feature for the website. And they’re probably doing all of this for more or less the same pay.
But who is training these newspaper journalists to film and edit video content? Are there enough people out there with the expertise? And how is that expertise being shared?
There’s one fact that answers a lot of these questions and it is this: it’s becoming more and more difficult for journalists to get staffer jobs. And, if you’re a freelancer, you’ve got to do all you can to show you can provide content for different platforms – and that includes video. It’s surely no coincidence that all the Frontline Club’s training courses currently being advertised focus on helping journalists master video techniques and Final Cut Pro editing software.
A video screening at the Frontline Club in London (Creative Commons)
These Frontline Club courses will set you back £125/day or £650/5 days (on average). A 5 day video journalism course at the European Journalism Centre costs most than £1000 (at the time of writing). Some lucky journalists (maybe those on staff jobs) will have their costs covered, but freelancers will be funding their self-improvement out of their own pockets. The message? Adapt or die.
So at some level the industry recognises that journalists need to be (re-)trained. But, according to several high-profile journalists who work in both print and video, the training on offer is normally too limited. And this means the quality of the video journalism on most newspaper websites is, in fact, quite poor. A lot of the best stuff is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the work of American journalists (more on that at a later date).
In an article for the American Journalism Review, Charles Layton sums up the situation: “The bulk of online news video occupies a broad, gray middle ground in terms of quality, as the industry stumbles toward a goal it cannot yet quite perceive or articulate.”
However, help is at hand with the likes of findingtheframe.com. This website describes itself as “a gathering spot where multimedia journalists can receive feedback on their videos, audio slideshows and multimedia projects from industry professionals and fellow visual journalists”.
Through initiatives like this, the experts are sharing their wisdom. Perhaps it’s less a case of Darwinism in action (different species of journalists competing for survival) and more a case of journalists of all kinds collaborating. After all, in this unfamiliar and continually evolving technological landscape, no group is guaranteed survival.
February 16, 2011 Leave a comment
By Ross Cullen
The Financial Times and The Economist use their online video content to engage and exploit the universal interest in ‘people’ and ‘celebrities’.
Last month, Emily Craig gave an in-depth look at the Wall Street Journal and the idea of paywalls on financial newspapers’ websites. In this post, we pick up on the same topic, but with a focus on the ‘personality-orientated’ use of video in the two major British financial publications.
Even hardened economists need a break from fiscal data and share indexes at some point. The FT has recognised this and come up with a clever way of introducing interviews into its coverage without losing its serious focus. It understands the interest that its readers have in the leading public figures from their financial world but does not want to expand that coverage into its print edition. As a result, the newspaper normally reserves interviews and profiles of public figures for its online video content.
The Economist also recognises the clamour for public interaction with political and business personae and has expanded its online video operations to facilitate expansion into this area. Moreover, just like the FT, it does not want to compromise its print versions with lots of magazine-style feature interviews.
By doing this, both publications can use their printed versions to deliver economic analysis and political reports whilst not neglecting the importance of interactive content. There are three main points that they have recognised:
1) Video is a key component of the online face of any printed publications
2) There is an interest amongst their readerships for profiles and interviews with leading people in the financial and business fields
3) The best medium for offering these profiles and engagements with important figures is through online video content
Interestingly, and as we have seen before, journalists are increasingly having to spread out from their traditional medium in order to maintain that vivacity and freshness which landed them their jobs in the first place. As in other publications, print journalists from the FT and The Economist are now presenting video content as well as writing print copy.
Finally, and arguably most significantly, putting such videos online facilitates reader and/or viewer interaction in a way which is absent from the newspaper. Put crudely, talking at the pages in your hand does not work; you have to use the internet to encourage reaction, comment, linking and debate from your readership. Uploading video interviews of interesting people is an intelligent and simple way to do this.
Source – Video One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4Qb_NezAf4
Source – Video Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4yN00qGBbI
January 30, 2011 1 Comment
Financial newspapers are investing in online video journalism (Emily Craig)
By Emily Craig
It’s becoming more and more evident that the big broadcasters and their alter-egos, the solo vloggers, aren’t the only ones investing time and money in online video content. Many in the media have noticed that newspapers such as The Guardian and the New York Times have been building increasingly sophisticated multimedia platforms over the past few years. But there’s now a new player in the market as the financial dailies get involved in creating and sharing video content.
So why are financial newspapers in a category of their own? Why is their interest in online video journalism more surprising?
This question can, perversely, be answered with a question – would we expect video journalism to add anything to business reportage? For a medium that relies on creating a visual impact, how it is that footage of brokers and traders staring at computer screens in strip-lit offices has the potential to make an interesting or arresting piece of video journalism?
Admittedly, the likes of the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times do not confine themselves to only reporting financial news, but it’s certainly the main focus (and the most profitable part) of their output.
Now the websites of both newspapers are experimenting with the video format – and, apparently, making money out of it too. Perhaps crucially, each newspaper’s website is ring-fenced by a paywall. Their readers are paying for expert information, be it stock tips or expert analysis of the market.
And this means that their video journalism doesn’t have to be ground-breaking or particularly original – they have a captive audience, who come to their website for niche or ‘exclusive’ content, regardless of the form in which it is delivered.
But how exactly have these newspapers made a success out of the online video format? The Wall Street Journal now has 10 million streams per month of its latest videos, with more than 20 people working to produce up to 5 videos per day. Each video is bracketed by an advertisement, normally of about 15 seconds. The ‘shows’ normally come in at under 10 minutes, with some less than a minute in length, and all of them are filmed live.
We’re not talking cable television production values. Against a prosaic corporate-HQ-type backdrop, we hear live from correspondents in the newspaper’s other bureaus (another corporate-HQ-type backdrop…). Any newsworthy footage is usually provided by an agency like Associated Press or Reuters, with stills also used as wallpaper for a voicer from one of the newspaper’s journalists.
So far, not so inventive. But the style of the video ‘broadcasts’ has been compared to that of the cable TV bulletin in the US. With American networks continuing to produce programs that are more opinion-focused and less news-based, the Wall Street Journal could be onto something with its daily briefings at 8.30am and 4pm.
Video journalism online could also be a new source of commercial revenue. Advertisers are willing to pay more for a premium video slot once they’ve seen the impressive CPM (cost per thousand impressions) figures. It might even be that journalism is following the money, rather than the other way around – although that’s a difficult one to prove.
In contrast to the Wall Street Journal’s bulletin-style analysis, the Financial Times is not looking to reproduce an existing TV format. This arguably means it can afford to be a little more creative with its video output, since it’s looking to produce stand-alone ‘complimentary’ features.
However, for both newspapers at this stage, you’re left with the impression that filming a conference or interviewing a talking head is their idea of video journalism. Neither newspaper has been driven to experiment with video as a way of widening its audience or broadening its appeal.
There’s no critical need for either of these publications to be creative with presentation when they can afford to rely on the nature of their content to attract subscribers.
But, having been offered the chance to boost commercial revenue on the cheap, it’s hardly surprising that these newspapers are capable of identifying a shrewd investment. They’ve woken up to the trend, and it seems like they’re cashing in on it.
VideoJournalismOnline 
Local News – The Future
March 15, 2011 Leave a comment
screenshot courtesy of Ledger Live
We’re all familiar with a newspaper’s ‘comment’ section. Or, as some of them like to call it, their ‘opinion’.
These have been stalwarts of print journalism for many years. But, as Toby Coaker outlined for videojournalismonline back in January, The Times is the only UK based paper to transfer this type of journalism onto the web in video format.
In the States things are a bit different – one example of local political opinion transforming into online video is Ledger Live, from New Jersey’s The Star-Ledger.
Here Brian Donohue gives an often sarcastic/satirical take on the affairs of local government.
A good example is this not too complimentary assessment of Govenor Christie’s selective economic policy.
How does this relate to the UK?
Donohue’s producing something that doesn’t really exist in the UK, because national broadcasters (the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky) have to be impartial and national newspapers just haven’t got on board with the idea behind Ledger Live.
The Future
David Cameron’s been a champion of local government since his time in opposition.
As Prime Minister he’s devolving power and says he wants to create more vibrancy in local politics – to get people interested in the affairs of their local councils as part of his ‘Big Society’.
And Jeremy Hunt’s plans for local TV news slip nicely into line with this ideal.
But if the whole plan works and political activism flourishes once again in the boroughs and constituencies of the UK, you can bet that intense frustration will be kindled in the general public when it comes to local TV news.
Local output’s required to be impartial too. As a result Council failure won’t be reported with the angst needed to reflect the voters’ views.
In this political climate there’ll be an opportunity for partial ‘comment’ or ‘opinion’, and the websites of local newspapers will be the platform capable of supporting such a development.
Could they afford it?
On one hand it’s unhelpful to draw comparisons between state newspapers in the USA and their British ‘equivalents’ because New Jersey, for example, has a population of about 9 million and the Star-Ledger’s circulation is about 220,000.
Each UK constituency has an electorate about 66% smaller than the Star-Ledger’s readership, and local papers would reach dramatically less than that.
But print journalism’s suffering in the US in the same way it is here.
Sponsoring online video is now an option – adverts screened prior to the content beginning – and could bring in valuable revenue.
And if Ledger Live shows us something else about the future, it’s that you only need basic equipment to bring politics alive for the next media generation.
Here’s The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank proving this very point. Can you imagine a similar video poking fun at 4 or 5 candidates in Garston and Halewood?
Filed under Alex Dibble, Bloggers, Broadcast Media, Foreign Media, Print Media, The Future Tagged with Brian Donohue, comment, Dana Milbank, David Cameron, Gareston and Halewood, Jeremy Hunt, journalism, media, New Jersey, news, opinion, politics, The Star-Ledger, The Times, TV, UK, USA, Washington Post, website