Powerful video = great story + great execution
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or get my latest posts directly in your mailbox. Thanks for coming to the Foo!
Doug writes a very interesting post on how his company lost a bid by not using a video.
While I have to agree that video is a powerful tool, I would like to make some remarks:
For that video to be powerful, it has to be well made. A badly made video hurts more than a badly written text. But a well scripted, well executed video can convey information - and emotion - more efficiently than written text can.
Rather than Video >= Images + Stories I would suggest a formula along the lines of value of a video = min (story; technical quality; execution). It’s the weakest link that defines the potential of your video.
There are many companies that call themselves “video production”, and even more people with a video camera. Video cameras can be had for little money, simple editing programs come with all modern OSes. While it may be tempting to go for a cheap in-house solution, as always quality costs.
Different clients need different presentations
Not all clients appreciate “meat”. One of the first bids we did was for a state controlled company. After the presentation we were told (unofficially), that our presentation was the most creative, most exciting. But, in the end they went with a production company that is used by most other state companies. They got an alright, off-the-shelf video, that is watchable. But not memorable.
While our solution promised to actually excite the audience, it also would have been a non-standard way of presenting. Our client was not prepared to take the risk of doing something unusual. So, they got a run-of-the-mill presentation, well executed, passionless. Something our client could safely show to his boss and say that he o.k’ed it.
Reading in the web time
I don’t think that people read less than before. It is just that the amount of data people have to process has exploded. I actually think that we read more, but we skim also more than before.


For the 