Behind the scenes of newspapers’ video efforts
Cory Bergman February 20th, 2007
New York Magazine examines the somewhat new video operation at NYTimes.com as well as the rather established, award-winning unit at WashingtonPost.com. Yes, the author seems to think that “smart people” will get their video from newspaper sites at the exclusion of TV sites — which of course, is a ridiculous statement — but there’s some good information in here. My favorite quote, from NYTimes.com’s David Carr, on how his bosses told him to give video “a whirl” fifteen months ago: “‘Let’s give it a whirl’—that’s not something that comes up a lot (at the New York Times.)” This experimentation with web video, unfettered from TV thinking, is yielding some promising newspaper video projects.
Adds Jim in comments: “Let’s let newspapers think they’ve figured it out. Sadly, they haven’t come close with any of this. It comes down to what people will ultimately find of use to them. Right now, video clips on TV station sites make up only 5-7 percent of the traffic — and that is using some of the most compelling VIDEO (’show me’ video, not newspaper ‘video’). So, most if not all of the newspaper ‘video’ won’t begin to touch that.”
9 Comments Add your own
1. thetampachannel | February 20th, 2007 at 9:34 am
why is that ” a ridiculous statement”?
i think “smart people” as well as not-so-smart people will get their web video from whichever source has the best.
just yesterday commenters were telling how their corporate motherships were holding back or cuttingback on their current web channels.
newspapers were taken to the woodshed back when the net was mainly text and were doing just about what tv execs are today. i think they call it living in denial.
but, then again, i’m just one of the not-so-smart.
2. Cory | February 20th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Smart people watch TV, too. And they go to TV websites. It’s the typical, pretentious print-is-smarter-than-TV attitude that’s so last millennium.
Although you could argue, certainly I have in the past, that the newspapers’ aggressive pursuit of online video is smarter than local TV’s slow uptake.
3. jim wilson | February 20th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Yes, let’s let newspapers think they’ve figured it out.
Sadly, they haven’t come close with any of this.
It comes down to what people will ultimately find of use to them. Right now, video clips on TV station websites make up only 5-7 percent of the traffic — and that is using some of the most compelling VIDEO (”show me” video, not newspaper “video”).
So, most — if not all — of the newspaper “video” won’t begin to touch that.
The main test should be: if you couldn’t count on anyone watching it on TV, why would they on the web? Or, why would an audience that is any SIZE that gives you ANY ROI on your production?
In other words, sure, you can get someone to watch your droll “smart” newspaper video. But, get ready for it to be less than 1 percent of your traffic (and HOW much work will you be putting into that?) Think PBS on a much smaller scale.
I haven’t even touched the concept of linear experience vs. non-linear…. Given the choice between scanning a story quickly and watching a video, people would MUCH MUCH prefer to read it — and then watch any supplemental video that IS COMPELLING. (real video, not newspaper “video”)
My favorite line from that dumb article in the magazine was “The medium is too new and unsettled to have anything like a best-practices rule book. ” HA!
4. thephiladelphiachannel | February 20th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
linear vs. non-linear:
how’s about offering your most compelling stuff in three formats?
audio- if i’m too busy to read or watch.
text- as you say for “scanning a story quickly”
or, full-on video.
the internet can do this you know.
can a tv?
a dead tree?
a radio?
5. Irwin Fletcher | February 21st, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Oh god, I just went and watched some of the David Carr video..
TERRIBLE!
Why would anyone watch more than 30 seconds of it? It’s just him walking around interviewing people..
It’s not even images that should be video.
Wow… good thing the NYTimes has this all “figured out”
6. Howard Owens | February 21st, 2007 at 7:56 pm
I love when newspaper video is debated on Lost Remote. All the head-in-the-sand TV news people come out and say how dumb newspaper video is, proving once again, they don’t get it.
It makes me smile.
Everytime I start to worry that TV will wake up and get it before newspapers grab significant market share, I just come to Lost Remote to be reassured that we on the newspaper side have plenty of time, if not forever to get it right.
I’m so happy after reading some of the comments on this post. So happy.
I could tell you, Jim, and others, why you’re clueless without even risking that you’ll have a light go on, but why bother?
I’m so happy.
7. jim wilson | February 21st, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Oh, so, Howard… You speak as if you have some imperical evidence that your point of view (which, I’m so glad makes you happy) is correct.
The information I quote is actually fact. (And, actually, those numbers are high for TV sites.)
I’d love to hear why newspaper video (such that it is even video) is really on the right track.
Right now, it barely passes as good PBS video… and the last time I checked PBS doesn’t even try to gain an audience.
I looked all over NYTImes for video after seeing Irwin’s post and would agree. There is not ONE CLIP there that should be video. It’s little more than talking heads.
I suppose your measure of what is “good” has nothing to do with gaining viewership?
Please, do tell…
From what I can tell from your “happiness,” the model for success is showing video of things/people that ought not be video with no worry about whether anyone is watching it.
Enlighten me. Please.
8. jim wilson | February 22nd, 2007 at 5:32 pm
ok Howard… barring anything from you, we’ll all assume you have no idea what you are talking about
and, considering you have no professional background in creating video or even deciding what is “good” video, that’s probably a very safe assumption…
goodbye
9. thedetroitchannel | February 22nd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
“no professional background”
that’s definitely a plus in today’s personal media revolution.
goodbye
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed