If only PodTech would get ScobleShow a video editor |
I’ve held off reviewing Podtech.net and more specifically ScobleShow, one of their flagship videoblogging shows (”A PodTech original”), primarily because I wanted to give Scoble a chance to get over there, situated and start cranking out the quality stuff. Also, wanted to wait until CES was over and see what kind of coverage emerged.
For those who don’t know, Robert Scoble did some clunky but informative amateur videoblogging for Channel 9 at Microsoft. That gig led to a job offer for both he and his wife to create ScobleShow at Podtech.net in July 2006. His video skills were constantly criticized at Channel 9. He’s fixed the video quality by buying a more professional camera but the audio still needs a lot of work.
If you don’t want all the details then here’s what you can expect: better video quality, slightly better audio quality, very good quality subject matter and total underutilyzation of video editing.
Before we get too far, a disclaimer: I’m new to regular videoblogging and most criticism offered here is based from a viewer perspective. I’m sure anybody reading could disembowel my weekday Hmmcast videoblogging– and I hope some will do exactly that — telling me what they think is good and what sucks so that I can improve. My advice that follows for Podtech and Scoble is meant constructively, even if it gets snarky at times. Don’t confuse writing style with intent. I’m not worried that Scoble and Podtech’s John Furrier (is it pronounced “fury-er” or “furry-er”?) will take this wrong, but if they do, then they have the comments below and/or their own blogs to be heard.
I enjoy offering detailed feedback out in the open and letting others critique that feedback. Sure, I could drop these guys a personal note, but Scoble is always complaining about having too much email, and more importantly nobody else would see the feedback and have the chance to weigh in with their own feedback. Use the medium.
That would be my three words of advice to Scoble: use the medium.
Hats off to Scoble for continuing to find interesting people to talk to and share with the rest of us. He’s managed to parlay his connections while working at Channel 9 into access that many other videobloggers either don’t have or cultivate as successfully. Scoble is fast to offer up these connections when criticized:
Regarding my videos being “bad.”OK, I’ll bite.
Where’s a better video of the 45nm Intel fab?
Where’s a better video interview of the people who built it?
Where’s a better video explanation of what the new technology does and how it let Intel build a new series of chips that’ll run our computers (Google just announced it is switching back to Intel)?
A little humility, Robert, please. With a video editor all the videos you mentioned above could dramatically be improved.
Don’t get me wrong, ScobleShow raw footage is very strong. I’ve been leaving comments here and there on the ScobleShow videos and overall have been impressed with the raw subject matter. Scoble can brag about who he’s talking to, but it’s a shame to get this footage and then just dump it on the internet without any further treatment. No summarized edited video, just the entire sometimes laborious offering.
Time is not on your side — when making video
Now let me point to Om Malik’s advice to Scoble in one of the Scobleshow videos: don’t waste people’s time. Nobody — even Bill Gates — is interesting all the time being shot with raw video.
48+ minutes for Ed Saenz, the guy who named WiFi? If there was ever a case for editing, then this video is the poster child. I know it takes away from your time finding and organizing who to talk to, Scoble, so maybe hire somebody to do that for you? You’ll do your audience a huge favor shaving off boring parts of conversations. The signature goofy laugh can survive the editing process if you want.
Cue the Om Malik video, another interesting conversation damaged visually by an unmoving camera shot with subpar audio. Another example is the one with Scoble’s wife Maryam talking to the hotshot Zuma player. Better camera movement on that one as Scoble seems to become the cameraman for (all/many?) his wife’s video interviews.
Not all ScobleShow videos are too long but looking at the front page as of this writing I saw the following running times: 40:21, 42:40, 2:01 (audio only), 41:16, 33:52, 42:02, 13:11, 22:34, 26:32, 18:52, 5:50, 7:59, 10:24, 9:03, 23:20, 14:59.
Quick math tells us that’s over 350 minutes worth of video. That’s almost six hours of ScobleShow recently. Divide by five and it could be watched in an hour which would be more realistic time-wise for regular viewers to follow. Maybe that’s not the ScobleShow target audience? Regular anything? I’m not being saracastic here, I’m simply wondering aloud.
Loren Feldman gave Scoble sound advice, and wasn’t just goofing on him, about doing something about the length of these videos. What did Scoble and Furrier do? Hire him to go off and create his own edited videos. They should actually put Feldman’s advice on video editing for ScobleShow in play.
Scoble has pointed to other heavily edited videoblogs like Rocketboom and Ze Frank as being a fan. It’s not accidental that these shows share a common trait: good editing.
I’m certainly no video pro, and definitely lacking the pro hardware, but even a videoblogging amateur like me understands the importance of editing and so far have spent more time editing than shooting raw footage.
Raw footage must be edited.
While nothing is stopping somebody from just just uploading raw, prerecorded video it isn’t very respectful of viewer’s time. If the video is live that changes the landscape, but when it’s prerecorded and over a few minutes, it demands editing. Scoble seems not very interested in editing through his actions, choosing to just give us raw conversation with the camera rolling and expecting us to edit out what we think is worthwhile.
People don’t have that much time.
To make matters worse during the Saenz interview Scoble jokes about the only problem being the tape as far as length. That’s a silly admission to viewers that he doesn’t think our time is very valuable. With every five minutes of raw footage one would be fortunate, I think, to get one minute of visually compelling footage. Does ScobleShow care about the viewer’s time? I think Scoble does, but the finished product seems to say otherwise.
If I’m not being clear here: you don’t use video to record podcasts or use podcasts to read text (blog) posts. Each medium is unique and has strengths and weaknesses.
Attack of the color bars
The video quality with Robert’s HD cam is very good. It’s got me thinking about buying a more expensive camera (damn him) but I did notice several distracting color bars in some videos:
These color bars weren’t unique to ScobleShow videos they showed up in several different sampled Podtech.net videos and could be a result of the compression scheme. I left a comment about this issue on January 15 and haven’t received a response either privately or in the comments area about this issue. Perhaps I’m the only one seeing this?
(doubtful)
More podcasts than videoblogging
I’m finding myself with most ScobleShow videos just listening to the audio. Why not just make them podcasts and skip the videoblogging if there is nothing more interesting to watch than two guys talking and drinking water? Yeah, we get to see what the people look like, I get that. Use the digital camera and take a few photos instead, perhaps?
Possible solution: social editing
Here’s a suggestion: make a community-friendly license for the ScobleShow videos (Creative Commons), encouraging others to mix, match and edit them for you. Release and promote them as “raw ScobleShow videos” so that people know not to expect something polished that takes full advantage of the video medium.
I don’t blame Engadget for not linking en masse to the ScobleShow videos. Unsurprisingly, Scoble disagrees. What are they going to say? Here is a 45 minute conversation with XYZ where there’s maybe 5-10 minutes worth of interesting visual information? I think ScobleShow would be better having podcasts of the videos and Engadget linking to that and let the listeners visualize a much better video experience than is being provided by the raw footage. Also, those guys can’t have the time to mine through ScobleShow videos trying to pick out the good parts.
ScobleShow could benefit greatly from a Google video permalinks feature and would become more link-friendly.
The interviews could be a lot more visually interesting and watchable as video if edited down to 10-15 minutes max and using multiple camera angles. Only have one camera? Stop the interview, move the camera around to another position on the tripod, and continue the interview. Better yet, bring a cameraman. Bring two.
A skilled editor could make ScobleShow much more watchable, entertaining and worthwhile. In the current form, the ScobleShow feels a little bit like watching Robert’s RSS aggregator with almost no filtering. Cherry picking or audio-only strongly recommended.
If I was basing this review off raw footage it would get a B+ (audio quality hurts it being an A), but sorry Robert, you are at best barely using the strengths of the medium. Video is about more than good subject selection, point, shoot and share. Time is extremely important. Just because you have 40 minutes of source doesn’t mean every — or even most — viewers will want to see all 40 minutes. Grade: C-.
Did this post make you go hmm?
(Hmm, no ratings yet)
Loading ...Maybe Related Posts (plugin generated)
- Podtech sheds famous Scobleizer troll Coulter, beds Feldman
- Rory Blyth takes over Scoble’s video job at Channel 9
- Two valuable lessons I’ve learned from videoblogging
- Microsoft names another Scoble replacement with Jon Udell as evangelist
- Interview #1: Jeff Barr from Syndic8.com [podcast]
- Feldman’s Kramer-Imus-like meltdown results in PodTech separation by “mutual agreement”
I know it’s blasphemous in today’s bandwidth-rich world, but I just can’t get into videoblogging. In fact I never really got into podcasting either. I far prefer to consume at my own pace, and the easiest way to do that is with text. I’ll always pick a good, lengthy and thorough written review, with photos, over the video equivalent.
Am I the only one?
Comment by Chris Davies — January 28, 2007 @ 2:59 pm PST
Agreed that text is far faster to deal with than podcasts or videoblogging (by far the slowest), Chris.
However, I think if videoblogging is used more creatively and time is respected it can do things text cannot do well. That’s what my interest is in the medium and why I’ve made this year a serious committment to produce one new videoblog post every weekday, save for holidays and weekends. Didn’t think I’d understand the medium sitting on the sidelines, so I’m digging in and exploring.
There are just some things that don’t work as well in text or audio. Some examples and forgive me for using my own nascent videoblogging (not saying these are great examples, but they show effort to use the medium at least):
Hmmcast #46: A lot of people have heard OnStar radio ads or maybe had friends who actually have it but until you see it in use it doesn’t really have the same impact. Hopefully a non-boring OnStar demo.
Hmmcast #44: Another demo, this time for the Zizzle iZ. Sure, I could have written a review explaining what the Zizzle iZ does, but to see it in action, being unpackaged, there are visual and audio descriptions that are more difficult to translate to text. Yes, they can be done, but IMHO not very easily. I’m not sure I still understand why people are attracted to the iZ, but that’s part of the fun of the video.
There is also the whole being better understood human interaction thing. People tend to skim text and while they can do that with audio and video too the message will be less likely to be confused with eye contact and voice inflection.
I see the potential for the medium if viewer time is respected. In the case of the show reviewed above and I’m sure many, many other videoblogs out there it isn’t happening enough. Ze Frank and Rocketboom both respect viewer time and while neither show is something I regularly watch I do appreciate the effort and respect for viewer’s time. Neither of those shows rarely exceed 5-10 minutes per show. Asking any more time of viewers must yield quality similar to what’s on TV. People simply value their time too much to waste on watching raw footage.
Give me 40 minutes and I’d rather watch the latest episode of 24 than two geeks talking with one camera view. It’s nothing personal to the content producer, but the more time they use, the more work they better put into it. Perhaps that’s why you haven’t been interested in videoblogging, Chris? Because you haven’t felt there was anything more to be had from the videoblog than the text entry. Quite understandable, if that’s the case.
Comment by TDavid — January 28, 2007 @ 3:19 pm PST
No, you’re not, Chris. I can read faster than people can talk, so I prefer to get my news and info from text. I watch videos for entertainment. Unedited or minimally edited video is a disservice to the viewer, and ultimately to the creator, as well. Marshall McLuhan’s thesis that the medium is the message isn’t really true, not yet, anyway.
Comment by Vince Williams — January 28, 2007 @ 3:59 pm PST
I didn’t refresh before T.D.’s comment appeared. The nuances of voice inflection and eye contact aren’t generally that important to information delivery. They matter when I’m sizing up the personality or integrity of a political candidate, but not when I’m trying to grasp his policy positions–I’d rather digest those by reading them, rather than possibly being unduly influenced by skillful oratory.
Comment by Vince Williams — January 28, 2007 @ 4:11 pm PST
[…] TDavid at MakeYouGoHmm.com makes a very accurate not about the entire problem that Scoble has: He needs to edit! […]
Pingback by Kerfuffle via video podcast — January 28, 2007 @ 4:55 pm PST
Great commentary and advice.
1) My style is all about the conversation and is done with single camera. Editing looks lame. It makes it look like I cut something out of the conversation. Which would be true. Regarding the naming video, so you want only three minute highlights of that? Great. But that adds cost to the video.
2) The audience sizes are too small to support the increased cost of video editing. Editing costs money. Money only comes with audience size. So, it’s hard to justify.
3) Which Intel video did you get the most value out of? Mine, that’s on ScobleShow.com, or the “professional” one that we spent $10s of thousands on, that’s on the top of the home page on PodTech.net right now?
Professional video is possible to do. But it costs money.
Comment by Robert Scoble — January 28, 2007 @ 4:55 pm PST
[…] with del.icio.us | Email this entry | TrackBack URI | Digg it | Track with co.mments | Click here for copyright permissions! Copyright 2006 Mathew Ingram […]
Pingback by Scoble’s Achilles heel is video » Mathew Ingram: mathewingram.com/work — January 28, 2007 @ 5:22 pm PST
As they say that’s why there is vanilla and chocolate. There is a place for all of it. The medium is still developing and there will be room for all of it. Yes I find Scobey’s stuff long, but lot’s of people don’t. My stuff is a different genre. It’s like comparing Charlie Rose and a Saturday Night Live skit.
Comment by Loren Feldman — January 28, 2007 @ 6:05 pm PST
TDavis,
You are correct.
Robert needs a film editor. The statement “Editing costs money. Money only comes with audience size. So, it’s hard to justify.” is a fallacy of logic. A good film editor will create a superior product that will attract a much larger audience that will allow you to justify the cost of the film editor to the suits.
I’ve seen it happen. I worked on curriculum for architectural sheet workers whereby we created a show with a typical sheet metal shop. We taught the deep knowledge involved in the craft of architectural sheet metal by filming professional actors in various aspects of the trade (see http://www.sheetmetal-iti.org/video.htm). We spent 12 hours editing every 1 hour of film on average, and the result was spectacular.
Having worked in the semiconductor industry for 3 years (Axcelis Technologies, Inc.) I am familiar with a fab. That video on Intel could have been much more creative, technology-savvy, interesting, funny, worthwhile, etc. if a film editor had done their hard work to make it so.
TDavis makes a number of excellent suggestions, especially about how time on video is not like time anywhere else in life and to undertake a practice you suggest in Naked Conversations, i.e. as with blogs, open the process to the world (social editing).
As TDavis suggests, Robert, your conversations can continue…better and reaching a far wider audience…with the good work of a professional film editor’s help.
Comment by Bruce Curley — January 28, 2007 @ 6:19 pm PST
I personally found the whole 45nm fab news uninteresting. Probably because I’ve worked in a fab labs. Big deal.
From a video perspective, like I told you on irc,td, Gun Sword. If someone created me a theme song or intro like that, I’ll start a vid blog. hah.
ScobleShow should have an intro or something. Maybe it’s changed, I haven’t watched it in a while. Loren has that neat little 1938 media morse code stuff. Need some of that.
Comment by darkmoon — January 28, 2007 @ 6:24 pm PST
Robert re: #2 where you said “2) The audience sizes are too small to support the increased cost of video editing. Editing costs money. Money only comes with audience size. So, it’s hard to justify.”
This completely sidesteps my point about opening up your raw footage to others to edit. License so that others can freely and legally use it. You can make it like Creative Commons 2.5 so PodTech still gets the link love and you could make it available for commericial or non-commercial. With commercial usage you could share in the revenue (think affiliate) and then you have your income source to pay a professional editor.
Just like digg has people freely submitting great content, give other people on the internet a chance to edit your raw ScobleShow footage. You aren’t giving up anything as far what you are already publishing you are allowing others to edit your footage into works far beyond the “conversation” you want to offer unedited.
If you did this I’m fairly certain that you’d see a much, much better and tighter version of the ScobleShow emerge. Your audience that thinks editing is lame will still get the full meal deal from you (raw footage) but will have the ability to get the edited version from others.
You say you are for social media and Loren says chocolate and vanilla. Here, here, give others a chance to do something with that raw footage. If you do what I’m describing above then watch PodTech become something both Furrier and you have dreamed about.
I would encourage professional music artists to do the same thing, BTW. There is a lot of value in the raw material, but there is also value in the edited material — and people who can do both can share in the income flow successfully.
Think about it.
Comment by TDavid — January 28, 2007 @ 7:33 pm PST
Interesting, insightful stuff! Thanks for trying to see our side.
Comment by Ryan Block — January 28, 2007 @ 8:15 pm PST
Oh, and TDavid. I forgot to make a big stink about our other video which has NONE of the problems you discuss above (was professionally shot with two cameras, a separate audio guy, lights, had editors working for a week, etc etc): http://scobleizer.com/2007/01/28/the-intel-video-i-should-have-linked-to-more-prominently/
But, notice the first comment that I got when I posted that.
I think what this points to is there’s room for two separate approaches.
Comment by Robert Scoble — January 28, 2007 @ 10:07 pm PST
Bruce: >>We spent 12 hours editing every 1 hour of film on average, and the result was spectacular.
If I had to spend 12 hours editing for every hour of shooting, I’d only be able to do one video a week. There’s a reason I’ve decided against that approach. There’s too many companies who are trying to get demos of their stuff out. They’d never get video exposure if I had to spend that kind of time editing.
Every CEO says that my videos have had a sizeable effect on their business. Why? Google. Google links, even when others don’t. So, the traffic eventually comes.
Comment by Robert Scoble — January 28, 2007 @ 10:12 pm PST
I agree that there are certain things which lend themselves best to being shown through video; however, I’d also argue that if you can’t explain something in written form in a way that accurately confers that to a reader, then you need to go back and reword your explanation! I probably sound like an old curmudgeon (a scary thought considering I’m 25 not 85) but if English text was good enough for the classic writers and is still good enough for the numerous authors producing incredibly good works today, then it’s good enough to describe the latest cellphone.
Video has taken off, perhaps, because it has the capability to be quick and because the bandwidth has opened up to accommodate it. It takes more effort to craft a great review than it does to hold up a laptop and say “here it is, here’re its USB ports”. I realise that what Robert is doing isn’t just product reviewing, and I appreciate the time, money and effort involved in editing, but by putting out lengthy interviews still in their raw state he’s basically saying that if you don’t agree to invest the time to watch the whole thing then you don’t get to benefit from ScobleShow. That’s fine by me, but when it comes to choosing stories to blog about I’m less likely to pick PodTech video than I am something I can look over quickly to see if its relevant. 45 minutes is a lot of time if you come out at the end thinking “this isn’t something my readers would be too interested in.”
If opening up the raw footage for community editing is too much of a free-for-all, then surely there are trainee video engineers/editors at a local college or university that would jump at the chance to do some unpaid placement time at PodTech? They get experience and something to go in their portfolio, Robert gets to carry on shooting video and not worry about editing, viewers get the salient points quicker and the companies being interviewed have more exposure. Not only that, but the exposure is based on opinion and critique, rather than simply ticking the boxes for a high Google search rank.
Comment by Chris Davies — January 29, 2007 @ 12:59 am PST
I also challenge the thinking that professional editing costs money. It does cost time. So I love the ideas around opening up the video to be edited, remixed, rethought, reenergized etc by the community.
I’ve started to be enthralled by video myself (and I’m a neophyte), although I fancy myself more of a writer. There are pieces of art as well as experiences that cannot be conveyed effectively regardless of my writing skill in a visceral immediate, sensory, immersive environment that I believe images and auditory elements bring to the table.
For instance, I kick myself now for not having a vid cam at the brand-new New Frontier on Main at Sundance Film Fest ‘07 (story: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117957606.html?categoryid=2472&cs=1). There is really no practical way that I can express the interactivity of the video art installations and the cafe vibe as effectively as if I’d just SHOWN it to you live.
I lean towards TDavid’s sentiment that interviews can be done effectively in podcasts with addition of a few stills.
I also think it is possible to throw out the long-form raw video and use something like Click.tv (disclosure: they are a client), so that one can jump, skip, and skim to the segments of interest. Typically a video is its entirety is the socialable object - which often feels too bulky - but with Click.tv any point in the video can be chunked into microcontent whilst still part of the whole, annotated, commented, and made socialable.
Comment by Evelyn Rodriguez — January 29, 2007 @ 12:34 pm PST
Evelyn: time is money. I am paid for my work a salary. So, if I spent 12 hours on a video that I’m not spending doing something else, then there’s an opportunity cost.
I’ve decided to spend that time doing more videos, cause I think that’s more important right now than having MTV-like short videos.
Now, this post has me reevaluating my approach, which is healthy any way you look at it.
Comment by Robert Scoble — January 29, 2007 @ 12:56 pm PST
Time might be money, but an unpaid intern isn’t money.
And I’m sure there are plenty of film students that would jump at the chance to work with Scoble and crew. Great resume builder. At least that’s what I’d think would happen. I know that when I was going to school, it was all about my career afterwards, so if it meant being a janitor to get the foot in the door, I’d do it.
Comment by darkmoon — January 29, 2007 @ 1:10 pm PST
Thanks for the interchange. This has been very interesting to see the approach.
Robert, I agree you should keep the raw interview available. It is like how reporters are being asked to upload their notes and recordings of an interview. For those that want to dig deep and get to the grist of the matter, and have the time, the raw shows can not be beat.
However, and there always is a however, would it be possible to break the show into a 3-5 minute segment. Time is a factor, and it seems every time I sit down with one of your videos as a consumer, I end up getting distracted by the real world and never watch the show with full concentration. If there was an edited 3 minute teaser that had a like to the full video, you could monetize the interview, fulfill the needs of both vendor and viewer, and have a way to cross market it on YouTube and other video services.
The extra cost of editing the interview to the key salient parts, or do a secondary interview live covering the short hits to save editing time, could make your brand much more accessible to a broader audience.
One one of our sites we do an hour long radio interview show weekly. But we also have a daily 2-4 minute commentary that is to keep the viewer involved and coming back. The combination is working well and our listener base is increasing rapidly.
TDavid, keep up the analysis, it is very beneficial. And Robert, thank you for all you do in the blogosphere. You have extended it and broken new ground and a couple of eggs. I love it and keep being you.
Comment by Tom — January 29, 2007 @ 1:41 pm PST
[…] Yes, sometimes Robert’s videos can be long. I know there are a bunch of folks who complain about this (T.David recently). You know what? I consider Robert a friend of mine and yeah sometimes the videos are a tad long. A little editing would be nice. The other side of it is, maybe giving someone enough time to talk about their topic is good. Are we getting to addicted to the 15 second soundbite? I typically don’t watch the videos, just listen. I think of them more like a radio-show program than something that should be short and concise. […]
Pingback by PodTech.net: Blog » Blog Archive » A ScobleShow, short and sweet on Intel — January 29, 2007 @ 2:57 pm PST
Geat tips for ScobleShow. I have watched a couple videos and it has great content, it just got arduous to watch the entire thing. I would like to see some better editing cause that would make it a lot easier to watch. Thanks for sharing these tips openly.
Comment by cabe — December 8, 2008 @ 8:36 am PST