I had posted, some time ago, a video on European enlargement, produced for the European Commission, that was accused of being racist.... I thought it was a clumsy attempt to capture young audiences, but that it did not strike me as racist; especially, I really did not want to be too negative as the Commission had started producing more daring - hence prone to criticism - videos.
That was then. Now, a couple of friends have separately sent me the YouTube link to a new Commission video that in theory should push young women to study science. Well, frankly I am speechless. Have a look:
Do I need to comment?
What bothers me though is:
A) that the European Commission spent probably a large sum of money to get the video done;
B) that no doubt they must have brainstormed and decided that this approach was not sexist or stereotypical but an effective way to communicate to young women (surely there must have been young women in the room, right?); C) that the producers went ahead and finished the beauty but then, when they started being criticised - exactly as it has happened with the video on the benefits of enlargement that I mentioned above- the Commission decided to pull the video from the website.
This means that:
A) Commission people don't really believe in what they do;
B) they are scared of being cricised so in fact they are not daring at all;
C) all the money spent is wasted as the video is not shown any longer.
One tricky thought: the link above has probably more views than many - if not all- videos the Commission has produced until now. So, let me get this right: I produce a video that I know will be criticised and for this reason it will be watched a lot; as soon as I get negative comments, I pull it from my site - people can still find it on YouTube - but I can say I am not showing it; and in fact, since people talk about it, it is probably money well spent even if they talk about it because it is bad..is this a new Commission audio-visual communication strategy? Oh dear, way too perverse....don't think so.
Videos, communications, Europe and some other loose ideas
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Size (actually length!) matters, but good and long is fine by me! (Oh dear, that sounds weird!)
Ok, I have been thinking quite a lot about the length of videos lately: a couple of people told me that the video on the Council Summit, shown in the last post, is maybe nicely done but it is definitely too long. True. Well, maybe.
This actually got me thinking: is it really always the case that short is better? Aren't we just contributing to the trend of the ever decreasing attention span of people, mainly young, who are not able to concentrate for more than 5 minutes before getting bored? Should we make a distinction between what has viral potential and what is interesting, informative and well done?
I guess part of the answer to these questions lies in what is the prime objective of the film maker: to reach the biggest audience? To explain something in more detail? To produce a beautiful film? Can and should one aim to achieve all of these objectives with a carefully crafted 5 minute video?
Blaise Pascal once wrote on the top of a 17 pages long letter: "I have made this letter rather long because I have not had time to make it shorter". So, in theory, with time and effort, it should be possible to condense a long thought into a much shorter one and that should surely also apply to videos. Certainly this is not done enough. But sometimes it is not the issue: if after watching the first two minutes of a long video you would rather shoot yourself than watch the rest, then it is simply not a good video, never mind the length!
On the other hand, there are amazing hours-long documentaries that are shown - unfortunately less and less - on television, then posted on Youtube: they grip you from the first seconds; they are very well done; they give you insights that you had no idea of and, most importantly, they leave you with something to think about and remember. To be fair, they are incredibly expensive and time consuming to produce, but the quality is truly outstanding. And it is sad that public broadcasters have dramatically reduced investing in these types of programmes because - they say - the audience is no longer interested in such lengthy and detailed films. True? Don't know really, probably yes.
Frankly though, if you asked me to chose between this:
(the second episode of a four part series on Putin, Russia and his relationship with the West) I am afraid this is no longer available due to BBC copyright!
...and this:
(more than 100 million views for....well have a look!)
...I know which one I would go for (all right, maybe I am very biased and it is an unfair comparison but this is where length, quality and virality clash...or do they? Guess what is considered the most viral video of all times?: the 30-minute long 'Kony 2012'!)
This actually got me thinking: is it really always the case that short is better? Aren't we just contributing to the trend of the ever decreasing attention span of people, mainly young, who are not able to concentrate for more than 5 minutes before getting bored? Should we make a distinction between what has viral potential and what is interesting, informative and well done?
I guess part of the answer to these questions lies in what is the prime objective of the film maker: to reach the biggest audience? To explain something in more detail? To produce a beautiful film? Can and should one aim to achieve all of these objectives with a carefully crafted 5 minute video?
Blaise Pascal once wrote on the top of a 17 pages long letter: "I have made this letter rather long because I have not had time to make it shorter". So, in theory, with time and effort, it should be possible to condense a long thought into a much shorter one and that should surely also apply to videos. Certainly this is not done enough. But sometimes it is not the issue: if after watching the first two minutes of a long video you would rather shoot yourself than watch the rest, then it is simply not a good video, never mind the length!
On the other hand, there are amazing hours-long documentaries that are shown - unfortunately less and less - on television, then posted on Youtube: they grip you from the first seconds; they are very well done; they give you insights that you had no idea of and, most importantly, they leave you with something to think about and remember. To be fair, they are incredibly expensive and time consuming to produce, but the quality is truly outstanding. And it is sad that public broadcasters have dramatically reduced investing in these types of programmes because - they say - the audience is no longer interested in such lengthy and detailed films. True? Don't know really, probably yes.
Frankly though, if you asked me to chose between this:
(the second episode of a four part series on Putin, Russia and his relationship with the West) I am afraid this is no longer available due to BBC copyright!
...and this:
(more than 100 million views for....well have a look!)
...I know which one I would go for (all right, maybe I am very biased and it is an unfair comparison but this is where length, quality and virality clash...or do they? Guess what is considered the most viral video of all times?: the 30-minute long 'Kony 2012'!)
Friday, June 1, 2012
So, Herman and Janez, ready for the Oscar?
I promised myself that if I saw well produced (if not necessarily viral!) EU videos I would post them on my blog, not to be accused of always being too critical or polemical... well, here are two examples. The first video was produced recently by the Council (main protagonist: Herman van Rompuy, but don't let this scare you!), describing the frantic preparations ahead of and during a European Council Summit in Brussels (brief positive parenthesis: the fact that the video talks about the March Council summit and that it has been posted on Youtube at the beginning of May is not bad; well, coming from television news, it seems an eternity but for a documentary, not bad at all). The other comes out of the Commission (main, and only protagonist - if you exclude some ducks-: Janez Potočnik, but same as above!)and it was the opening video at this year's Green Week conference on water issues. Well done (a bit too long the Summit one, but with a good pace), clear message, relatively
entertaining (and I say relatively as a disclaimer, as they are obviously not made for entertainment but for information purposes). They both convey the importance of what is being described but in a light way, light in terms of visuals (Green week),or in term of script (Summit). I was told one evening that the Commission has been trying to assess the number of videos that it has produced over the years and they are still counting. Well, maybe fewer but good ones such as these would be a responsible and effective strategy from now on.
Here they are:
entertaining (and I say relatively as a disclaimer, as they are obviously not made for entertainment but for information purposes). They both convey the importance of what is being described but in a light way, light in terms of visuals (Green week),or in term of script (Summit). I was told one evening that the Commission has been trying to assess the number of videos that it has produced over the years and they are still counting. Well, maybe fewer but good ones such as these would be a responsible and effective strategy from now on.
Here they are:
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
KONY 2012: a success? Actually...
So, April 20th has passed and when we all woke up the following morning, the world was not covered in posters of Kony, as predicted by the campaigners.
Just a couple of headlines to sum up the 'event': "Kony 2012 “Cover The Night” Event Is A Gigantic, Pathetic Flop", "Kony 2012's 'Cover the Night' continues despite controversy", "Kony 2012 Cover the Night fails to move from the internet to the streets".
Yet, for the organisers, it was a success.
Well, the whole thing makes me now quite sad.
- Sad because even if it is not really clear how many people participated in the event worldwide, it looks like the move from digital to direct action has not happened.
- Sad that the campaigners refuse to acknowledge that the results were not what they expected (see new video on what's next below).
- Sad that the criticisms of the campaign, of its founder, of its success - or lack thereof- might either be true or incredibly damaging if they are not.
- And sad because, I did watch the video, although admittedly did not pledge to participate, but still, I did not go out and started sticking posters everywhere.
But putting emotions aside for a minute: why have I not done so? And what are the key lessons to learn from this failure - or very limited success?
First, I don't want to believe that people simply do not care. I fear that the problem resides in what the supporters have been asked to do: there is too big a jump between 'watch the video', 'give your support', 'share on your Facebook page' and 'spend the night out and do something relatively dangerous, possibly illegal- even if you have done a good deed just before it!'. Maybe I am just lazy, but there has to be an in between step.
Second, the organisers should have not been scared in admitting a partial defeat: building an 'active support network' takes not only time but most importantly trust. And there lies, in my opinion the other main lesson: it is true that jealous criticism is almost in the DNA of big surprising successes; but if you see reports on the founder being arrested for allegedly masturbating in public, you hear rumours that Kony is actually dead already and that campaign funds have not been properly spent, then, even as an initially loyal supporter, you might want to get your facts right before being actively associated with this campaign and cover your city with posters.
If Kony 2012 had really nothing to hide, which I have no reason or evidence to doubt, it would have been a sensible thing to simply say 'ok, this was not great but we move on' instead of saying 'we have succeeded and we move on' that sounds really quite odd. Anyway, will keep you posted, because, no matter what, I would really like to publish one day THE good news of Kony's arrest.
Just a couple of headlines to sum up the 'event': "Kony 2012 “Cover The Night” Event Is A Gigantic, Pathetic Flop", "Kony 2012's 'Cover the Night' continues despite controversy", "Kony 2012 Cover the Night fails to move from the internet to the streets".
Yet, for the organisers, it was a success.
Well, the whole thing makes me now quite sad.
- Sad because even if it is not really clear how many people participated in the event worldwide, it looks like the move from digital to direct action has not happened.
- Sad that the campaigners refuse to acknowledge that the results were not what they expected (see new video on what's next below).
- Sad that the criticisms of the campaign, of its founder, of its success - or lack thereof- might either be true or incredibly damaging if they are not.
- And sad because, I did watch the video, although admittedly did not pledge to participate, but still, I did not go out and started sticking posters everywhere.
But putting emotions aside for a minute: why have I not done so? And what are the key lessons to learn from this failure - or very limited success?
First, I don't want to believe that people simply do not care. I fear that the problem resides in what the supporters have been asked to do: there is too big a jump between 'watch the video', 'give your support', 'share on your Facebook page' and 'spend the night out and do something relatively dangerous, possibly illegal- even if you have done a good deed just before it!'. Maybe I am just lazy, but there has to be an in between step.
Second, the organisers should have not been scared in admitting a partial defeat: building an 'active support network' takes not only time but most importantly trust. And there lies, in my opinion the other main lesson: it is true that jealous criticism is almost in the DNA of big surprising successes; but if you see reports on the founder being arrested for allegedly masturbating in public, you hear rumours that Kony is actually dead already and that campaign funds have not been properly spent, then, even as an initially loyal supporter, you might want to get your facts right before being actively associated with this campaign and cover your city with posters.
If Kony 2012 had really nothing to hide, which I have no reason or evidence to doubt, it would have been a sensible thing to simply say 'ok, this was not great but we move on' instead of saying 'we have succeeded and we move on' that sounds really quite odd. Anyway, will keep you posted, because, no matter what, I would really like to publish one day THE good news of Kony's arrest.
Monday, April 16, 2012
KONY 2012: what is right, not what is possible.
A new video on the Kony 2012 campaign has been recently released.
Fascinating. The original video has been viewed more than 100 million times (in just over a month). As with every big hit, it was also heavily criticised: too superficial, too white, too sentimental. Maybe, maybe and maybe but so what? Is the idea to try to do something about what we find wrong, or just to create a perfect product?
The second video tries to respond indirectly to some of the criticisms (more details, more blacks, more to the point) and highlights the impact so far. Actually, while the first had all the ingredients for virality, (a part from a key one, length: who would have imagined that a 30 minutes video would go viral? Will need to update my virality recipe!) this second one is, well... a second one, so, by definitition, it will not be as successful. But there is a bigger point to make at this stage: the campaign wants to move from being mainly 'digital' to 'physical'. Specifically, on the 20th of April they are asking their supporters to write to their local or national politician, and, when the sun sets, go out and carpet bomb with flyers their city - or do any other noticeable legal activity that will put pressure on their government and make Kony known and eventually tracked down.
If they manage to convince enough people to do it, it will be a big first, I think: from 'clicktivism'- very easy from the comfort of your desk - to real action. If then Kony is found and arrested, it will be an unbelievable
success. We will all need to think twice before coming up with the classical excuse for not doing something (i.e. 'It will never work. It's impossible'); but politicians, above all, will need to take notice and maybe, just maybe, start doing what is right on top of what is possible, what is realistically achieveable, never mind what is 'in our national interest'.
But what if they don't manage...will this whole campaign be remembered as a great stunt, great use of social media and worthwhile effort but ultimately a failed campaign?
I wait with anticipation and in the meanwhile...am drafting a couple of letters!
Fascinating. The original video has been viewed more than 100 million times (in just over a month). As with every big hit, it was also heavily criticised: too superficial, too white, too sentimental. Maybe, maybe and maybe but so what? Is the idea to try to do something about what we find wrong, or just to create a perfect product?
The second video tries to respond indirectly to some of the criticisms (more details, more blacks, more to the point) and highlights the impact so far. Actually, while the first had all the ingredients for virality, (a part from a key one, length: who would have imagined that a 30 minutes video would go viral? Will need to update my virality recipe!) this second one is, well... a second one, so, by definitition, it will not be as successful. But there is a bigger point to make at this stage: the campaign wants to move from being mainly 'digital' to 'physical'. Specifically, on the 20th of April they are asking their supporters to write to their local or national politician, and, when the sun sets, go out and carpet bomb with flyers their city - or do any other noticeable legal activity that will put pressure on their government and make Kony known and eventually tracked down.
If they manage to convince enough people to do it, it will be a big first, I think: from 'clicktivism'- very easy from the comfort of your desk - to real action. If then Kony is found and arrested, it will be an unbelievable
success. We will all need to think twice before coming up with the classical excuse for not doing something (i.e. 'It will never work. It's impossible'); but politicians, above all, will need to take notice and maybe, just maybe, start doing what is right on top of what is possible, what is realistically achieveable, never mind what is 'in our national interest'.
But what if they don't manage...will this whole campaign be remembered as a great stunt, great use of social media and worthwhile effort but ultimately a failed campaign?
I wait with anticipation and in the meanwhile...am drafting a couple of letters!
Friday, March 9, 2012
Is this racist? Well, clumsy maybe but...
The European Commission decides to produce 'daring' videos and, for once, I will not be the one criticising... you be the judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)