A Quick Point about Video

Our latest newsletter on video has performed very well; so far it's the second most popular newsletter we've published (behind Time to Get Gmail). I also received some stronger criticism from a reader who works as a professional video producer. Here are some of his points, consolidated below (you can read the full string at the link above):

Tim Danyo: This looks like home video and not professional quality. Why would a professional company portray it's image as low quality? Why have a killer website and then throw home video on there? As a professional video producer I see potential pitfalls for folks wanting to do their own video and wanting it to look professional. As online video grows with popularity quality video will be what really stands out. The majority of video online is already poor in quality (home video (ish) stuff.

Both Mark and I responded that it was not our intention to always prefer lo-fi video to professionally produced video. It all depends upon the context and purpose of the video. In fact, I repeatedly stressed that the kind of quick and dirty video that I created was helpful in getting a simple message out and provide a way for your audience to see you as you are. After Mark and I addressed his comment, he did go on to say that he had responded before finishing reading the entire newsletter. So, all that to say that video doesn't have to be a certain way- how you do it should depend upon it's ultimate purpose.

Also, I wanted to point out my younger brother's snarky comment. He posted a link to a video comment he recorded using Viddler (watch it here). The fact that he could respond so quickly using that tool is in and of itself a pretty remarkable thing. After all, what better way to respond to a video than with another video?