Hollywood or YouTube – What’s the right level of training video production?
A couple of weeks I completed a video shoot for two short training videos. (When I say “I”, I mean I made sure there were snacks and supplies for my hard working video team.) I know that 90% of my job as project manager on shoot days is making sure that there is sugar around to get us through the afternoon!
Today, I read a post from Clive Shepherd that got me thinking about the decisions we made at that shoot. He argues that training does not need to have “Hollywood” production levels – that learners don’t need or expect it. His first point is that: “You will never in your wildest dreams be able to match ‘Hollywood’ production values or even get anywhere near.” While slightly depressing, it’s true. For those of us working as consultants with clients, it can become a little tricky to communicate this message (without looking like you’re trying to get out of work) and also identify what the production needs of the audience are. From my experience, here are a few questions you need answers to when developing training videos:
- How will the videos be viewed? A video viewed online in a 2×3 player probably doesn’t need the production value of something seen on a large projection screen.
- How old is your audience? In my opinion, a younger audience has different expectations than an older one. And while teenagers or twenty-somethings are used to low production videos on You Tube, they are used to videos that move quickly and have a high entertainment value.
- What’s the budget and timeline ? Many clients have little to no understanding of how much it costs or how long it takes to develop a super-slick video game, or Hollywood movie.
What other questions do you think need to be answered? How do you determine when you are less concerned about production value?
Tags: video
June 13th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
This is a good discussion starter. As a leader of a company that started in video production 20 years ago and has been developing technology based learning solutions for almost the same amount of time, I’ve seen this debate for many years. I’ll add a few questions/coniderations to your list above:
1. How motivated is the learner – If I’m a bridge engineer and someone has captured a video of a new bridge construction technique that I want to use in my next design, I’ll be motivated to watch any quality video. If I’m a retail customer service rep and I’m learning how to properly communicate with customers and follow procedures, I may tune out a video captured with a hand held camera with difficult to hear audio and poorly executed scenarios.
2.Does a user generated video provide learners with value that they wouldn’t get if the information was communicated in a different way? We see this a lot with customer testimonials and seeing applications of a product in a customer setting. If I’m developing a learning application for a widget salesperson, I would rather have a salesperson captured video that might be hand held and poorly lit of the widget performing at a customer location while I heard the customer tell why the widget is the best solution than no video at all.
3. What are you trying to do with video? Are you simply trying to capture product demonstrations or applications? Are you trying to capture different perspectives through testimonials? Or – Are you trying to simulate salesperson – customer interactions? or manager – employee interactions?
In summary, there is a grand canyon range of quality between “Hollywood” and “flipcam” operated by someone who is not following good video techniques. Where you land on that range requires thinking through your questions, some things I’ve added and some others. Keep the discussion going.