Video tour for New website
 

I did this project on a small budget & quick deadline and I'm looking for some feedback. I didn't write the script and I feel it is sorta long for a video that will play on a website, but the client always gets what they want, right?

I'd also be interested what you think one could charge for project like this.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TjU8pDd6KM

Here are a few stills from the video. I know youtube isn't the best way to share, but I'm currently in the process of building a new website.

I have no idea what you would charge but it looked VERY professional to me. The transitions that you used seemed to work flawlessly.

Nice work!

Mike

Thanks Mike, I think the keying looks a little soft on youtube, but it's razor sharp on my monitors and the DVDs I've made. By transitions do you mean when she slides in and out of the screen? or when the website flows over her?

Both actually.

Cheers,

Mike

Very nice! Clean and professional. I am assuming you used one or another form of HD? Just curious because the keying looks great.

Very well done. I imagine it looks even better when it it is not on Youtube. For an intro video do you mean one that plays as soon as you hit the site or one hidden behind the About link? If its front and center I agree it is a little long and that a shorter one would be better up front with a link to the longer more explained video. Either way, the video was well done IMO. The keying looks good and the transitions of when you bring the site into frame flow smoothly. Good Job.

I like your style!

What NLE are you using, and what did you use to capture the computer shots? Do you do scholarship videos?

Thanks all, for the kind comments. Still looking for what you all would charge. Doesn't have to be an end all set in stone thing, I would just like to know if I'm in the ballpark. Give me ranges.

Dale: I choose to shoot in DV for this as it is only intended for web.

Josh: The video I believe, will be on the front/home page, but users would have to click it to start it.

Dana: I primarily use FCP on my desktop and Vegas on my laptop. This particular project was edited entirely in Vegas with animated screen captures using vegas' pan and crop features. I haven't done any scholarship videos per say, but I have done high school sports videos for the collective team, which I know some have used as such. I would gladly do a video focused on one player if they wanted.

Travis, this is very well done. I have no idea what to charge for it, but it's really nice looking.

Where did you find the spokesmodel? She does a really nice job with it, is she a professional?

One criticism I have to an otherwise flawless video. At 00:41, there's an awkward moment during the transition where she bites her lip and is just sitting there. If you could trim off a second or 2 there, it would be perfect. It looks a bit amateur with the pause there.

I really like how she goes from fullscreen to a player window within the web page, as opposed to a picture in picture, covering things up in the process.

What codec did you use for the YouTube upload? I agree, the keyed edges look soft (but not bad), but somehow everything else looks sharp, strange how that happened.

What does the UR stand for? Or is it a cool way of saying 'your'?

Eric

Really good work. How much to charge? Well, that's tough because you've got talent to account for as well. It really depends on how long it took you to shoot, edit, and what you used for the shoot. How many hours of did you put into it? Was it all your own gear or did you go to a green screen facility?

Thanks Eric, here are the answers to your questions:
1.Spokesmodel was a pro. She had the whole thing committed to memory and could incorporate any changes on the fly with no trouble.
2.The biting of the lip will be edited out, along with a few other changes once the site has a few needed design changes. (good eye)
3.Simply encoded to wmv for upload to youtube. It is odd how it handles the edge of keys. I've since noticed this on others work as well. I'll be experimenting with other codecs in the future to see which works better than wmv9. While it created a relatively small file, somethings take a hit because of it.
4. UR is indeed the clients 'web 2.0' way of saying 'your'.

She did a really good job. It'll be nice to see the finished version.

Yeah I'm not sure how YouTube works with these things either. Sometimes things that look great going in come out poorly, and things that look pretty good going in come out exactly the same way, like a 1:1 conversion. They're using H.264 there now, so you may want to try that route. They also accept AVI files now too, so you may want to try AVI H.264, if you don't exceed their file size and all.

This whole 'web 2.0' thing is getting so tiring. Anytime a new buzzword comes out, it's over and done with immediately, but it seems to take the world about 5-10 years to catch on. I saw a post the other day on a job forum that said "we want to design a classic web 2.0 networking site".. So now it's become "classic"? :)

Your client may want to rethink the slang/unprofessional-ness of UR (is this a text mesage?), but otherwise it's a great piece of work there. :)

Out of curiosity, what did the spokesmodel get for her efforts and how long did it take?

...Classic web 2.0 is a funny one.

I'll give H.264 a shot next time. Didn't realize they were taking that now.

The name stays. It's the name they registered and are happy with. I tried to show them some other options but the client always gets what they want whether it's right or not.

On a side note I tried to convince them not to charge users for this 'sports/myspace' experience. While they want a very web 2.0 name, they are not very web 2.0 in function. It's my understanding that you offer the registration and use for free to your users to get as many as you can with the idea of making money on the advertising / potential sale of your site should it take off.

Well I guess the whole idea with the Internet from the beginning (well, the beginning when the general public was allowed on in the early 90's, not in 1969) was to allow people to access stuff for free. It's not really a 'new' idea. The banner advertising idea came about (I used to work with one of the guys who invented the whole banner advertising idea, from Lycos) so that people wouldn't have to pay to access sites.

I don't think people like paying for stuff. Sponsors like paying if they're getting business from it. So I agree with you, charging for membership is going to keep their community small, which is a problem when trying to get advertising. If you tell a sponsor "we have 5,000 paying members, give us your money" compared to another site saying "we have 100,000 members", which one has the better chance of getting the sponsor? If there's a click-through rate of 1% or less on banners usually, you need as many viewers of that banner to make the 1% amount to something.

I guess the name isn't as confusing as 'MySpace'. I'm so tired of hearing "go check out my myspace".. people don't have myspaces, they have profiles.. ah well.. :) Perhaps you have a better name there than Quokka.. I still remember their radio ads where they spelled out q-u-o-k-k-a in a jingle.. poor singers. :D

The girl is hot, but what is more important, she did her job perfectly. Dang, I knew she was a professional. Leave the lip biting, it is soooo cute and sexy, just trim half a second AFTER the biting.

The whole thing looks perfect to me. The only gripe I have that you used the same transition twice: you show the girl, then the girl within the page, then you click a link and bring some boring list instead of the girl. Looked ok for the first time, but for the second time not so.

Otherwise, great!

I think you'd prefer he just remove the website completely, am I right? :P

Seems like I could make an "all spokes model version" and that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Nah, you could not. After all, you are advertising a website, not a girl. You wanted to keep male viewers glued to the screen, so you put a hot girl up. But she does not bring a bit of extra information, while website screenshots do. For purely informational purposes a voiceover would have been enough and you could use an ugly girl with nice voice for probably ten times cheaper.

I hate myself for watching your video till the end despite your cheap trick, and for watching it once again just right after that. Lip biting, ummm! Sexy.

Actually my last quote was more of a joke for you, than an actual consideration. I don't think of her as a cheap trick either. I'm certainly not the first person to use a Spokes model. It's more of an advertising fact that the video will be viewed more with her in it than without. Besides, if the site takes off, I know they plan on using a male version too, for future announcements.

I got it, don't you worry.
Sex sells, sex sell. Everyone knows that. And it IS a cheap trick, based on pure human nature. I am not blaming you for that, this is what everyone is doing. She's cute, I watched your ad twice.
Right, IF the site takes off. For it to take off they are using a girl. Figures.

You obviously didn't get it, otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need to tell me my business, twice in fact. I understand how the world works. I'm not some kid fresh out of school.

You mentioned many times about her being "sexy" and I was merely adding to Eric's post to you, about removing the website completely.

Thanks for your comments Michael, but this is the last I will discuss these issues here, as I don't feel this thread is headed in a direction worthy of this board.

I stand by my original comments. She did a great job with it, and you did a great job on the video. She's not trying to be sexy, she's just being natural and describing a product and does a great job of that.

No need to make it out to be a late night tv chat line advertisement. She's not playing it that way at all.

Nice work Travis, again. :)

Thanks Eric. Maybe I flew off the handle there, but your right, that we didn't play it out "sexy" I guess when I hear "IS a cheap trick" I sorta took offense to it. I mean, it's not like she was in a bikini and talking all seductively.

Anyway I'd rather focus on what people think it's worth money wise. What you think you could expect to pay and/or charge for a job like this. I know I gave them more than what they paid for as their budget was small. But they have plans of doing more video and I can't do them all for as little as this one. I was looking for others in the field to give there opinions on the matter and maybe share the thread with them after, but obliviously I won't be doing that now, though I would still be interested in thoughts on the matter.

Hey no problem. It wasn't a GoDaddy ad, after all. ;)

As far as cost.. Geez, I don't really know. How many hours did you put into it? Did you have to rent/buy anything to do the job? How much did the spokesperson cost? What is your usual hourly/project rate?

I guess it's really just basic math. It's tough to say 'well it looks like a $500 ad' or whatever, because only you know what went into making this work. $500 may be too little, given that there's another person involved, and she probably commands a decent bit of change, so that was just an example, not meant to imply a value for it.

Give us some figures and maybe we can give you an idea of it. And how much did you bill them and what was the agreement for future work?

Also regarding future work, you mentioned going with a male in the future. I personally think that this person should be the 'face' of the website. Instead of changing people from time to time, it would be good to stick with one person. Or add a second (male), if the site is geared towards females as well. Using the home gym ads as a reference, they want men and women to be interested in the home gym, so they show men and women using it. It's like clockwork how they edit them too. 2 or 3 seconds of the guy, then 2 or 3 seconds of the girl, showing the same exercise with each of them. Then they take turns talking to each other and the audience about what makes this one so special and easy, etc.

Chuck Norris should run for president. :)

I obviously got it, and I am not telling you your business, had no intention to. You posted the link for others to watch and to leave an opinion, this is what I did, I left my opinion as a viewer. I really don't care are you some kid fresh out of school or not. I praised your work if you haven't noticed.
Isn't she?
Why is she wearing a tight top then? I am not a prude, and she is not topless, but I consider this piece to have a clear sexual overtone, this is how I see it. Again, NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.
No, she is not in bikini. She just wears a tight top, she's young, attractive, with good makeup, and she bites her lip ;-) As I said before, she does not provide a bit of extra information compared to a simple voiceover. Well, maybe only to emphasize that the website can host videos too.
And now I have to shut up. I just had to clarify my opinion so you was not taking it as offence or attack. Obviously, your customer is happy to have a pretty girl instead of just boring web pages. I LOVED your work too. Really, really.

Again, thanks for your input Michael, I'm not holding any grudges or anything. I appreciate the time you took to comment and your input.

And when Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down.

Exactly. If you're going to include a guy in the next ones, it has to be that caliber of man/machine. :)

I'll do my best to pitch that to my clients using statments like: "His tears could probably be sold as an ultimate energy drink..."



Too bad Chuck Norris has never cried.





Ever.

Well no, but then when you use hot sauce for eye drops, how could you?

Very true.

Someone, namely "C.N." himself should capitalize on those and film webisodes of them. The traffic would be huge if they're done right, could generate good advertisers. Look at the geico cavemen for instance. They started out with nothing. Chuck already has two separate fan bases: Older fans who liked his movies, and younger kids who dig the Chuck facts, and a third if you count the people who buy his exorcise machines.

PS: Chuck Norris does not need to exorcise. He just thinks we should to make it a fair fight.


PSS: We'd still lose

Haha, that's true. Was it a Geico commercial that has 2 guys talking about him and then he confronts them in an alley or something?

That caveman show seems like a bad idea. I saw a great protest ad in a newspaper a year or two ago. Done in the Greenpeace style, on the backside of a Geico ad. Both were done by them of course. But it was hilarious. But doing a show? I dunno about that. I haven't watched it though.

We should call CN and pitch the idea. On a cordless phone though, so he doesn't reach into the phone and rip our souls out!

Would she be my companion? ;)

Very nice, although I would have sped it up a bit...the transitions and the whole feel of it seems a little slow.

I agree Bryan, The whole thing should be shorter, by possibly splitting the video at the transitions and putting the relevant sections on the pages of the website they correspond to. That way if the visitors want to learn, or see a little demo about the section they're currently in they can. I suggested that to my clients while we were filming the actress's part, but they didn't want to hear it. I mentioned it again when I delivered the video after we watched it, but they said they were happy and didn't want to change it. So while I think you're right, I can't really do anything about it, but hope they change their mind and tell me to change it. (Something that will cost them now, but would have been included when I suggested a month ago.)

I chalk it up to...

...Customers are almost always wrong, but they always get what they want.

I'm confused. What does this have to do with Chuck Norris?

Well Chuck Norris always gets what he wants. And for that matter, he is always right too. Quite odd of a client.



Note: C.N. was not the client for this video.

Okay, so C.N. believes the video is good at the length it is. Don't wanna try to argue with that. I get it.