The 'Secret' of New Media: Keep Video Simple

It's better to keep things simple and do video than to not do video at all. Don't get me wrong, I think video should have quality content, but a large corporation might have a more fancy video player on its site than a small one. And everyone needs to jump into video.

I have been know to convey a sort of elitism about new media, for instance, by scoffing at YouTube as a professional video platform. There's no real cut-and-dry rule: In some instances, YouTube can be kind of cool and grassroots. I think it all comes down to one's audience and content.

I expect Improv Everywhere to use YouTube (displayed nicely), and I expect an investment firm like Vanguard to use a fancy flash player. The federal government incorporates video on some sites: I was impressed to find recently that the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging features a pop-up player. (No, they aren't shelling out tons of tax dough for it; I recognize it as the affordable JW Player.) Do I expect the same from my city council? No, but in NYC they happen to be pretty kick-ass with the YouTube.

For editorial purposes, the same things apply. The NY Times has a variety of fancy video journalists and tools -- but local papers can do video too. As Ann Derry, the editorial director of video and television at The Times, recently wrote:

As you can see, the way The Times produces video can be technically and creatively demanding. But we are also encouraging reporters to shoot video with small cameras— like Tina Kelly, who reports for The Local. Most reporters can learn to shoot with a small camera then upload video to YouTube — that’s how my daughter’s high school newspaper produces video for its Web site! So video is a useful and accessible tool for even the smallest newspapers.

The world is having trouble enough coming up with a revenue model for video. The last thing we need is to make making video more costly. Spend time and money on good content befitting your audience -- not on a video platform.