Website Video Presenter - What do I do?

[Jim Andrada]

Well, I have to say that I rather liked Dave's appearance on the original post - until I realized he was reading the text. I think without the text it would have been super

Also, really liked the you tube clip

I think because it was clearly someone who was talking about something he knew (as was Dave, of course)

I think low key, friendly, and knowledgeable trumps flash and professionalism if the intent is to show the real people behind the company name

I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the talking head all by itself without surrounding it with text - maybe click the face and get a spiel. Somehw I think mixing dialogue and text creates a tension between the two. Just a thought FWIW

[Gary Nattrass]

Thanks for your comments, Stuart kept looking up at me and I told him he looked like a puppy dog wanting praise so that it why he is looking down to the lens.

I think you are right that an off camera eye line is more appealing and less intense so I will do the next one like this. It will work better in an interview type situation with just the answers being used as the sound bites.

You are also right that at the moment web pages do not suit video content but as it develops I think this will have to change, I was at a crossover media conference two weeks ago and the main point for web integration into IPTV and delivery via the TV system was that we need to get away from the static web page design and integrate video and networking tools into sites better.

Have a look at this site from some V/O people I use:British voiceover voice over talent voice-overs artists

I like the way they have integrated the video into the flat pages I personally have just made a sep page for the infomercial demos:http://www.hdproductionsolutions.com...316946158.html

[Neil McClure]

You know I think this is one of the most important concepts that face non-broadcast videomakers and I'm glad that this thread is still going.

Firstly, one thing I have learnt in the corporate area is that showing a video to anyone but the target audience will create a skewered result. They are not interested in the "story" and they will view it differently. For example, Gary Nattrass's financial adviser. To be honest I stopped listening to his speel and, well just "watched" it. I guess I checked out the background, wondered about the guys age etc. etc. But overall I liked it... I liked the guy, and maybe if I was looking into financial advice I would feel comfortable with him. ...Now isn't that the point.

So, is there a better way of doing this? I'm not sure now. Like others I've done quite a few client presenters and to be honest some were in my opinion, terrible, however, show them to other people and they go "oh well, seemed like a nice guy... didn't like his tie though..."

On another level, I have one client who has said that it does not matter what you say so much, it's more the fact that we are talking to our clients that matters. Now, to me that is a big point... I guess It's how you do it and probably more importantly - who IS your target audience.

So,

Originally Posted by David Stannard

I did the whole thing in house, and it's working very well.

Well then, great, it's doing the trick. I may not like aspects of it, but so what..

Anyway, I guess the main argument is how to do it. Now I agree, You do run a risk of turning off people if the the "talent" is really bad, in fact, that can have really bad consequences, and talking direct to a camera is a skill that not a lot of people have ...but maybe it's up to the Producer/Director to make it happen...

However, my feeling is that maybe an "interview" style could work better in that non-actors tend to appear more natural, but it stills depends on the "Direction" as to how it comes across.

As to how you implement it on a website, please no pop-ups, let the viewer make that decision.

Other thoughts:
Direct to camera - depends on the talent, the audience and the message
Make it visual - more pics/graphics to illustrate the story, show me don't tell me

[Gary Nattrass]

Thanks for the comment Neil, Stuarts ego has now been restored as he felt his pres was the weakest part of it.

But I want these type of things to be less hard sell advertising and more infomercial along the lines of the Pearl & Dean adverts we used to have in our cinemas here in the UK.

The power of video content could be great and for example I want to show people what their product or service is about rather than make pure commercials.

For example most people who are self employed or own their own business have had to do major things to be successful and it is how you show that and their passion for their business.

My first attempt was my pub promo that I did last year:YouTube - Pub Infomercial
It was made from just the stills and some old HDV footage I had and I did a local voice over.

[Gary Nattrass]

Just had an e-mail about the future of web presentation:YouTube - Booking An Audio Session

Funny for us dubbing guys but you can go to their web site and create your own animatronics from your own script!!!

[Neil McClure]

Originally Posted by Gary Nattrass

The power of video content could be great and for example I want to show people what their product or service is about rather than make pure commercials.

Gary, yep you are right. Taking a more creative approach with web video to promote companies is the way to go. However, a lot of people won't have the budget. I would say that in Australia the average budget for non-broadcast video production is about half (or more) of what it was 10 years ago, yes the cost of production is less but I feel that the price people have to pay for creativity is greatly undervalued, why pay 10k for an architect when you and the builder can whack the plans together!

So, I think that cost is often a major factor in the plethora of web presenters using "in-house" talent. Sometimes it's the clients request and sometimes it's the only viable route you can take.

Now my issue is, if you can't persuade the client to pay for a video with better production values then which is the best approach to take. Of late my feeling is that an interview style may work better as people can come across better - more relaxed, maybe more passionate, less hard sell. But then again sometimes direct to camera works better - that "hey this guy is talking to me" idea.

For example, in Australia we had a finance company run a series of ads featuring the owner of the company. He was not great talent in many ways, but, his message got across and he made a fortune (well until the GFC that is..). Now it may have been that his message (we will give you a loan at less cost) may have been the main factor, but obviously the message got across. Maybe it was the perception that here was an ordinary guy that was taking on the the big "nasty" banks. Not my favorite ads by any measure but they worked.

So, I guess it depends; on the budget, on the talent, on the context and on the message as to which is the right approach.

ps Liked the youtube video. I think I might know a few people like that.