Newspapers Upload More Video Than TV Broadcasters

Here's the best news of the year... so far.

Newspapers have surpassed TV broadcasters in the number of online video uploads and total minutes streamed.

Now we're not saying that all those videos are any good. Most, alas, are dreadful. Or nothing more than raw footage of local high school teams.

But it's significant that newpapers are growing to appreciate the irrefutable allure of video as part of the journalism storytelling mix.

All the juicy details are in a report that has nothing to do with newspapers vs. broadcast video. Instead, it's a white paper about "Peak Video Engagement By Days of the Week and Times of Day" -- i.e. when we watch video -- jointly commissioned by Brightcove (the most ubiquitous videoplayer platform for media companies) and TubeMogul (an online video analytics platform used by advertisers).

Their third-quarter report divulges these fascinating discoveries:

• Newspapers saw significant growth in the number of titles uploaded (51% growth) and surpassed broadcasters in total minutes streamed for the first time this quarter. This is an interesting development, and suggests that newspapers are rapidly adopting and producing video content for what was once a print business. This data also bears out the distinct differences in the content between the two verticals: broadcasters have fewer but longer titles, while newspapers are producing many more, but shorter titles on a more regular basis.

• Online media properties (which includes pure-play Web properties and blogs) also had a strong growth quarter in player loads (127% growth) and titles uploaded (23% growth), suggesting that video adoption and production activity is on the rise across the growing media category.

• Newspapers have surpassed broadcasters in the total minutes streamed this quarter, with 313 million minutes streamed, compared to 290 million for broadcasters. This is an interesting turning point because while broadcasters tend to have longer-form content, newspapers lead the group in sheer number of titles uploaded. It’s likely that spikes in news video production coincided with large events of the quarter, including continued coverage of the World Cup that finished up in July, and of the mid-term elections in the US.

• Q3 saw a significant increase in titles uploaded for newspapers, with a quarter to quarter growth of 51%, and a 110% growth compared to the same quarter last year. Newspapers lead the number of titles uploaded for media companies with 482,000 titles uploaded in the quarter.

• This quarter, we also saw significant growth (23% since last quarter) in title uploads from the online media category, which has now surpassed broadcast uploads, a first this quarter. This represents a 188% increase in video uploads year over year for online media.

The future of videojournalism is here. Now for our collective New Years resolution, let's work on allocating more resources towards improving the quality of those video stories, so we can attract more eyeballs to them. That in turn will woo advertising revenue, which can then be reinvested in further improving those videos, leading to a big happy upward spiral for everyone.

Oh, and if you're still wondering about when folks watch video, here is the report's conclusion: Wednesday is the most popular day for total video views, but people spend more minutes watching videos on weekends (including Friday). So lots of shorter videos mid-week; fewer but longer videos during the weekend. As for optimal times of day for viewing video: "Magazines peaked during working hours, while newspapers had more steady engagement into the evening hours. And, as expected, broadcasters total daily views peaked during traditional 'prime time' hours from 6-11PM, mirroring their television counterparts."

Read the full report here.

What Is Your Newsroom's Video Vision?

As an advisor to Bill Gentile's Backpack Journalism Project (pictured) at American University's School of Communication, multimedia producer Colin Mulvany recently shared his perspective of the rise and fall and eventual resurrection of newspaper videojournalism -- how we got here, and where we're going.

In his expansive essay Video Journalism at Newspapers, Mulvany concludes:

For the last several years, newspaper video journalists have collectively held their breath. Mass layoffs, newsroom reorganizations and non-paid furloughs have left journalists still employed at newspapers on-edge. The good news is the worst may be over.

Mulvany has been in the vanguard of shepherding still photogs into the video fold. He's generously dedicated his time and energies to educating a generation of videojournalists, and has even co-created a community Website, FindingTheFrame.com, to help novitiates learn from their more seasoned confreres.

Having built a seminal multimedia department for the Spokane's Spokesman-Review, Mulvany's advisory capacity extends beyond tutoring in-the-field practitioners and to counseling editorial management.

"I occasionally get calls from video producers or editors struggling with how to successfully integrate video into their newsrooms," he reveals.

These are the blueprint questions I would ask anyone on a similar quest:

* Do you have an overall vision for video in your newsroom?

* Why are you doing video in the first place?

* Is quality video valuable to your viewers?

* Has video gained traction on your website over time? If not, figure out why.

* Has your paper invested in training that empowers your video producers to be able to tell and edit a story effectively?

* Do you have (need) a web-savvy management structure in place to filter out bad video ideas and is an advocate for video based storytelling?

* If you are producing lots of video, do you have a website that showcases this valued web-only content?

* Can viewers find your videos quickly if they land on a story page and not on the home page?

* Can lower levels of video quality be acceptable if they meet a high news value bar?

* Do your videos load fast, have good, clean compression, and have full screen ability?

* Are you using social media to promote your video content?

* If you’re a small paper with dwindling resources, should you really be adding poorly produced video to your already bleak shovelware website?

For all the bleak economic realities he's encountered -- including layoffs and reductions of the troops he's personally trained -- Mulvany remains hopeful.

I still believe video journalism can generate revenue opportunities for newspapers, especially as the economy rebounds. The Internet is growing increasingly visual. Video, in many ways, is becoming the language of the Internet. Online viewers have steadily embraced video, so it’s imperative for newspapers to be there with compelling, well-edited video content for them to consume. But if video journalism, or backpack journalism, is to grow and succeed at newspapers, it will need a lot more nurturing and support from newsroom management than it is getting now.

Amen to that.

LINKS:

Backpack Journalism Project

Colin Mulvany's Mastering Multimedia blog

Finding the Frame Website

BBC Expanding Online News Video

BBC News is amping up its online video news coverage.

According to Journalism.co.uk:

The BBC will experiment with more livestreaming and short-form video on its website as part of its developments in multimedia news journalism...

More live coverage will be explored with the development of a "rich live page" featuring related content, streams of microblogged updates from correspondents and social media feedback from viewers alongside news videos...

The article quotes the BBC's new multimedia guru pontificating about what does and doesn't work with online video, and how it should and shouldn't be packaged and presented.

And you can see the current state of affairs over here and here.

Right now it pretty much looks like TV news repurposed (i.e. degraded) for the Web, as opposed to created for the Web -- a hybrid of raw footage, soundbites, half-assembled reports, with the occasional anchor or correspondent voiceover. Much of it looks like it's not ready for prime time, but was apparently deemed "good enough" for online use (i.e. scraped off the proverbial cutting-room floor).  Plus the videos themselves are poorly organized -- just a jumbled woodpile of unenticing titles and nondescript thumbnail images begging not to be clicked.

In short, not an improvement on standard newspaper video presentation (which is, for the most part, abysmal). For starters, we think the BBC could augment their basic headline service and B-roll with a healthy dose of full-fledged enterprising videojournalism storytelling. That takes an investment of time, money and talent -- far more than the slapdash efforts currently on display. If they really do decide to  stop dragging a foot in the past, and instead boldly plant one in the future, we believe the journalistic rewards will become readily apparent, with audience loyalty and financial rewards to follow.

KobreGuide Showcases 400th Video Story

This week, KobreGuide.com, which launched in Fall 2008, features its 400th video story.

Yeah, we're pretty amazed ourselves. (It seems like only yesterday that we posted our 300th story!) And every day provides more amazement as we watch and assess the merits of the highest quality online videojournalism being produced today.

We see signs everywhere that, despite the shabby economic state of the journalism industry, the medium of video is becoming more central to its mission. As the audience appetite grows for well-told, well-reported visual stories, the savviest producers and publishers are responding in kind.

But that river flows both ways. It's incumbent upon industry leaders to create and present compelling video stories that will entice viewers and whet their appetite for more.

To be honest, most videojournalism storytelling we see -- and we see a heck of a lot of it -- falls short in at least one of three key areas. It's either poorly shot and edited video, or it's substandard journalism, or it lacks narrative storytelling qualities that hook and engage viewers.

It's no wonder when newspapers distribute cheap Flip cams to print reporters and, expecting miracles, wind up instead with a mess. And even though still photographers have a visual sensibility, and may therefore seem more suited to the task of shooting video, there's still a world of difference between taking pictures and weaving a story with scenes and sequences. Plus, most photographers' experience with interviewing subjects begins and ends with grabbing caption info -- not asking hard-hitting questions, or even knowing who to track down for a balancing perspective.

In short, print reporters, writers, editors and photographers all bring valuable skill sets to the table, but they need to be trained and mentored by (and ideally partnered with) talented and experienced video professionals who excel in that medium.

Not to harangue, but imagine our perpetual disappointment at video stories that are promising in many ways, but ultimately missing key ingredients. They're not quite KobreGuide quality, but would have been a slam dunk had there been a real pro aboard to push them to the next level.

And that's what we recommend and foresee for 2010 -- print publications redoubling their efforts in the online video arena. More people are watching moving images than at any time in history, and, YouTube anomalies aside, professional quality will win the day. Follow the eyeballs, and the money will come.

As another year winds down, and we head into the holiday season, we want to thank the media outlets whose videos are showcased on KobreGuide for their generous cooperation and commitment to the cause, and wish them continued success in 2010.

And we want to thank you for your support, encouragement and feedback. It's your eyeballs, after all, that we aim to please! So it's especially gratifying to watch our month-to-month traffic grow steadily. Come along for the ride as we enter a new decade; we promise it won't be boring.

Meanwhile, you can review the best of KobreGuide's first 400 stories by checking out our Top 10 selections. And be sure to visit our Hall of Fame, where all the best KobreGuide stories are archived. Let us know what you think.

Happy holidays!

What Works For Online Videojournalism?

In the wake of the cheering New York Times report that online video ads are booming, Poynter's Regina McCombs offers a level-headed assessment of how well newspaper video is performing -- editorially and financially. Her conclusion? Don't Give Up on Online Video Yet.

It's a confusing time, because video has been heralded as the potential saviour of beleagured publishers -- with the sizzle of pre-roll advertising trumping the stodginess of conventional Web banner ads -- but once energized staffs have been running head-on into the harsh reality that video is more complex and expensive and labor intensive to produce than print stories. Consequently, faced with diminishing resources, some media outlets that were making inroads into this exciting new medium have now retreated and/or retrenched.

But all hope is not lost.

Combs asked industry practitioners: What's working and what's not working?

Predictably, the responses constituted a mixed bag.

While clearly there are video efforts that have failed or been abandoned, declaring it all a failure doesn't accurately reflect what's going on in the industry.

What does work: news shows. What doesn't work: news shows. What works: spot news. What doesn't work: spot news. What does work: feature pieces. What doesn't work -- you get the idea.

Of course, defining success is very slippery. A lot of traffic on one site may not be enough for another. Some places have very reliable numbers, others not so much. So for the purposes of this article, I'm not trying to define success, I'm letting each organization set their own definition of what makes video worthwhile.

All those who responded said, yes, absolutely, video works on their Web sites and is worth producing. The responses were passionate that it's much too soon to decide video's future -- that it deserves more time and effort. The responses were passionate that it's much too soon to decide video's future -- that it deserves more time and effort.

My question about what kinds of videos work best received fascinating -- and absolutely contradictory -- answers. Clearly, what works for one site does not necessarily work for others. But it's also clear there are many newspaper Web sites out there pleased with their video efforts and results.

Breaking news and sports seem to be the biggest traffic draws.

Features, however, take longer to produce -- which disincentivizes publishers from pursuing them, despite the fact that they have a longer shelf life.

Feature and documentary stories seem to be the problem children in videoland. Many complained that some of their most polished pieces consistently draw little traffic, to the huge disappointment of all involved.

And it's impossible to predict which features will lure eyeballs, adding to editors' frustration and growing resistance to allocating big resources to what might result in small rewards.

Long-planned and produced stories "almost always fail to resonate with a broad audience," complained one editor, who had no explanation.

But sometimes features actually do better, because they are more likely to be "shared" via social media (e.g. Twitter and Facebook).

Part of the problem, we suspect, can be the lack of presentation and organization of the videos themselves, making it impossible for audiences to find them -- and unenticing for them to explore them when they do. (That's why KobreGuide.com was created!)

Often the video stories are separate from the text stories they accompany, without a link from one to the other. Further, newspapers often do little to promote their best video efforts, erroneously believing that audiences will somehow discover them on their own.

Another significant trend: In an increasing number of markets, newspapers are teaming with similarly suffering local TV news broadcasters to co-produce packages that can be configured for both on-air and online consumption.

Though newspapers have a smaller news hole to fill, TV newscasters still have to fill the same number of minutes, and so the infusion of print reporters into their operations is a godsend for them. In exchange, newspapers enjoy the benefits of seasoned pros who are more comfortable in front of, and behind, a camera.

So it comes down to this: There is no magic formula to make video successful. It's as much about knowing your audience and responding to them as anything else. There is no one boyfriend who is perfect for everyone. Still, the folks I talked to had a number of suggestions about how to make a relationship with video work, which I'll write about in an upcoming article.

We look forward to reading that!

*****
Meanwhile, the Miami Herald's Chuck Fadely responded with his own perceptions on his Newspaper Video blog:

After spending a lot of time delving into our stats, I'm extremely optimistic about online video. Emphatically, our video is on a steady growth curve upwards.

Hard news and sports are the two big draws.

Event coverage of sports as well as studio shows about pro sports get good traffic. Some high school football game videos and some football studio shows will get 4,000-7,000 plays.

And now the bad news:

What doesn't work: 'soft' features of the sort that newspapers have covered for decades. It's depressing, but 'good news' - anything involving kids doing well, charity, overcoming adversity, or similar - gets almost no traffic.

Some other observations:

A relatively small percentage of our video traffic is generated from our front-page video player or from our video pages. Most of our video traffic comes from major news events on story page embedded players, by a margin of ten-to-one over other videos...

As far as what format the video takes, it seems to make no difference. The only thing that matters is the topic.

Shorter is usually better for completion, but some of our top videos with the highest completion rates have been eight minutes long.

We run high school football games shot by a scouting service that are filmed from a distant overhead position without audio and they get a lot of traffic. Some of our sports studio shows, all shot to broadcast standards, get a lot of traffic, while others don't.

One last thing: volume is important. Our total video traffic is impressive - the last two months we've had in the neighborhood of a half-million plays each month, which makes for a lot of time on site. A lot of that traffic comes from just a few videos, but the 'long tail' of having many, many videos on site accounts for the rest.

Bottom line: Journalists and journalism institutions should not be abandoning videojournalism, but rather running toward it with open embracing arms. While there are challenges and obstacles to be navigated, it is undeniably the future of our profession.

Poynter Assesses Future of Newspaper Video

On the occasion of last week's demise of 702.tv in Las Vegas, Poynter columnist Ken Sands surveys the relatively high cost and low quality of newspaper video efforts:

In discussions with a handful of video journalists, these themes have emerged:

* There's a market for good video, especially in big cities, but good video is too labor-intensive to be cost-effective.

* It's very easy to produce amateurish video, but difficult to sell advertising into it.

* As a result, video often is the first thing cut from downsizing newsrooms.

The question, amid all of the cuts in the newspaper industry, is who will be best-positioned to take advantage of money-making video opportunities if and when they emerge?

Read Sands' article... and share your thoughts.