Getting the voter to the polls. The mystery face game "Guess Who?"

Do you remember when I said - only a week ago actually - that the person in the European Parliament, in charge of relations with the citizens had said that we needed to wait anxiously for the next video produced for the upcoming European elections?


Well, it turns out the wait is over. Here is one of the outstanding visual productions that will push the disgruntled potential voter to the polling booth in a jiffy.



You did not want to bother voting? I am sure you want to now! Your vote counts. Your opinion counts. And, if you click on the mystery face game 'Guess Who?' screenshot above, you can hear all sorts of insightful opinions from people that supposedly are just like you, but actually they are not, in a language that is not yours - but the subtitles are!- on issues you may know little about but should definitely have a view on. One in favour, one against.  A bit like the video on the nuclear energy debate. The difference is that the latter is visually beautiful and made me think, whereas this one made me want to cry. I guess it's all about sparking emotions.  

Deep down, I am still hoping this video was not the one Mr Clark was referring to - as it came out 3 weeks ago and was produced for the Commission's audiovisual department and not the Parliament. Because, as someone said, "we must accept finite disappointment but never lose infinite hope". That, in a nutshell, is me and European communications. Thank you, MLK.

PreviEUws, or why Ms Ahrenkilde Hansen prefers her dentist.

There is an interesting website that has been brought to my attention. And it has been brought to my attention because I am writing about videos and the EU. This website defines itself  as 'The EU policy broadcaster' and is called ViEUws.

Before you start thinking that I am about to launch into a massive destruction exercise, let me say that I am really happy such a website exists. I will always go on repeating that video is a great tool to use and that it is admirable that there is someone trying to illustrate policies visually, even if mostly through interviews. So, I will not comment on the general quality of what is there because that is not my aim. (Let me just mention in passing the strange mix of private sponsors - with their own videos -and institutional material, but I guess the money needs to come from somewhere).

What I want to focus on is the regular interview with the European Commission's spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen. The interview series is called PreviEUws and focuses on the weekly agenda of the European Commission, ie what the EU is working on this week. Very good idea. But looking at the two people sitting in the studio, you really want to bring them a handkerchief, pat them on the back and tell them 'cheer up a bit... it will be over soon!'

Have a look yourself at the one of this week.


If one excludes some rare moments where Ms Ahrenkilde Hansen looks like she is about to start laughing at the interviewer, for the most part, she gives you the feeling that she would rather be sitting in the dentist chair, having her wisdom tooth removed, without anaesthesia. The very experienced interviewer (I checked it up on the site) is a Finnish native speaker and asks question at a pace and with an enthusiasm that, not surprisingly, makes the spokeswoman want to run to her dentist! Which makes me, in turn, quite angry, because it is a lost opportunity. And I am not talking about reaching a huge pan-European audience, but rather an audience of Europeans interested in what the EU does. The fact that the spokeswoman of the Commission is available to do this and spends quite a bit of time is great. But how do you make it punchier (or should I say punchy)?  Four small suggestions.

1) For starters, it should absolutely be no longer than 5 minutes and I am already being generous.

2) The two people should be sitting closer to each other with cups of coffee or water on the table between them - the one that now is empty and sad.

3) Looking at the agenda for the week, one should select no more than 4 topics, possibly fewer (unless of course it's a week where there is just masses of things going on) but make sure that on those topics, three key questions are answered: what is the Commission doing? What does this mean in practice? And why should we care? There might be some additional questions, depending on the topic or as follow ups but more as the exception than the rule.

4) The answers should then be edited in a way that conveys relevance and momentum. For this, one could use a simple graphic, which could also give a visual break, highlighting the topics and some key words of the answers.

These are little inexpensive changes that could make a big difference and make what is now a good idea into a good product. And a useful one too; for the Commission, which would have a way to explain directly to the public what they do; for ViEUws which would hopefully attract more people - and possible sponsors - to the site, and for the public which would be able to recognise the real impact that the work of the EU has on their daily life.

Enthusiasm is contagious. Let's make PreviEUws a carrier.

Science: it's a girl thing...Pulled videos: a Commission thing?

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.

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'!)

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:

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!

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.

It's the people, stupid!

Like everyone else I guess, I have been watching the news on the Greek crisis. In the past months I have seen reports on street protests in Athens, news pieces on helpless - or hopeless?- Greek politicians trying (we are hoping) to find a way out of the mess. More recently however, all I seem to see when talking about Greece are the worried faces of Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy.

Then I read about a project and a great documentary on the Greek crisis and it opened my eyes - or maybe it just lifted some of the European fog- or should I say snow? -that was preventing me from seeing properly.

Here is the trailer:


Krisis - Trailer - The Prism GR2011 from niko on Vimeo.

The documentary - that will be released later this year - is one of the features in "The PrismGR2011" ("In January 2010, Greece was hit by an unprecedented economic crisis. The arrival of the IMF marked the beginning of a series of revelations, forcing all those connected to Greece to go through a process of self-reflection... The Prism is a collective documentation by some of the country's rising photojournalists, who bring to the project their experience as well as their own perspective" from the homepage).

It is a beautiful project and well worth sharing: it shows just how powerful images and words can be. But especially it has reminded me - stuck inside the Brussels bubble - that in the end we are talking about real people and how they are effected, more than hand shakes, spreads and press conferences.