Is corporate video a waste of money?

Is anyone out there doing corporate video that they're proud of? If so, could you send me a copy?

I ask because for the second time in two months, a client of mine has asked me to evaluate their video vehicle. In both cases, I thought the videos were fine. Just fine. They were professionally done, and didn't just have a bunch of talking heads spouting corporate gibberish.

But . . . but . . . when you think of the money that goes into these things, can they possibly be worth it? I mean, video is great for telling compelling, interesting stories . . . and how many compelling, interesting stories are there in the corporate world?

We write about meetings and initiatives and goals and products and financial numbers. None of which is screaming for the video format.

I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the people who do corporate video do it because it's fun. Because it's so different than uploading copy to the intranet or producing a print publication.

But that if you held a gun to their head, they'd admit that, while the corporate video is fun to do, it's probably not worth the money it costs to do it.

Am I wrong? I can live with it if I am, but someone is going to have to show me the proof before I believe it.

Once again, I've been asked by Ragan to help plan next year's Corporate Communications Conference. And once again, I turn to the best practitioners in the field (that would be you guys) for help.

I'm not a big fan of bringing in a lot of consultants to speak . . . even though I am a consultant. Yes, they are very good speakers (most of them, anyway). And yes, you have to have a couple of them at the conference, because they often have a pretty good idea about industry trends and such.

But I'm much bigger fan of the practitioner/speaker. I like to line up people who actually do the work. My personal theory is that people don't go to conferences (at least Ragan conferences) to get big-picture views of industry trends.

I think people go to get practical ideas. And to network with people who do similar kinds of work. And that means practitioners.

And that means you guys.

So please consider this an official Call For Speakers to the Ragan Corporate Communications Conference. If you have something great to share—an idea, a campaign, a case study, a superior vehicle—please reach out to me.

It's a great chance to get some exposure for yourself and your company . . . and you get to attend the entire conference for free. And this year, it's going to be in Chicago . . . my home town. I know all the great bars and restaurants and blues and jazz clubs. I'm a member at all the museums. You WILL have fun.

Officially, I'm in charge of two tracks at the conference: One on managing your communication team and your career; and one on technology. If you have any ideas in those two areas, please e-mail me. And if you have any ideas that don't fall into those categories, e-mail me anyway, and I'll pass your name along to my Ragan colleagues.

Thanks!

It's really hard to piss off Shel Holtz.

I've known the man for more than 10 years, and consider him to be one of my closest friends. And though I've frustrated him and aggravated him over the years I am sure (I frustrate and aggravate everybody in my life at some point or another), I've never really, truly, pissed him off.

Not because I'm not capable of doing it. I am. But Shel is just about the most easygoing man I've ever met. In fact, I used to think it would be impossible to piss him off.

It's not. Ragan Communications has managed to do it.

Shel is pissed because Ragan is sponsoring an anonymous blog on government communications, titled 'Deep Background.' It's written by a government communicator who, because he wants to keep his job, only agreed to do the blog if he could be anonymous.

To Shel, this is abusing the concept of what a blog should be. In his blog, A Shel of my Former Self, Shel writes:

'I do a lot of work for Lawrence Ragan Communications. And when I say a lot, I mean, well, a lot. Ragan is, far and away, my biggest client. And I love working with them. Really. So it isn't lightly that I've decided to slam them all over the place for a particularly egregious entry into the blogosphere.'

The egregiousness comes, according to Shel, from the fact that the blogger won't sign his name. ' . . . this is a blog and anonymous blogging—especially when the blog is brought to you by a media organization—makes about as much sense as casting a vote with invisible ink. Where's the credibility of an anonymous blogger? When readers comment, to whom are the comments directed?'

On the one hand, I can certainly see Shel's point. Obviously, a signed blog is infinitely more powerful than an anonymous one. But . . . but . . . what if this government blogger dude has absolutely no choice?

What if he knows his boss and other people visit the Ragan site, and he knows that if one of them were to read 'Deep Background,' they would instantly know it was coming from someone in their organization? And what if he knows that it wouldn't take them long to figure out who the mysterious blogger is? And what if he knows that he would lose his job as a result?

To me, it comes down to this: An anonymous blog—while not ideal—is certainly better than no blog at all. If this blogger can raise issues and start conversations important to government communicators (and, having worked with many government agencies, I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that these people have their own specific set of problems, and having their own blog is a very good thing for them) but will only do so if he can remain anonymous . . . then let him have at it, I say.

It's not a matter of should he sign the blog or not. He won't sign it. End of story. So it's a matter of, do you scrap the entire concept? To me, that's wasting a valuable opportunity. So I vote for doing the blog.

What do others think?

As many of you know, I write a regular column for Ragan's Corporate Writer and Editor publication, titled "The C.R.A.P. Awards."

C.R.A.P. stands for "Corporate Rhetoric Awards Program," and the column showcases the worst writing in organizational communications. I'm never at a loss for nominees.

Well, yesterday, at Ragan's Summer Camp for Editors event in Chicago, I was talking about the column with Jean Clough, who was at the Camp teaching a digital photography workshop. Jean is an excellent photographer, a wonderful teacher, and an even better person.

"Your C.R.A.P. column inspired me and my husband to think about what the photographic equivalent would be," she told me. "And we came up with the P.O.O.P. Awards: Photos that Ought to be Outlawed Permanently."

POOP!! I love it. And in honor of Jean's brainstorm, what say we have a vote? What say we try to pick the most common corporate photo cliché of all time? The POOPiest of the P.O.O.Ps, if you will.

I'll list out what I think are the Top Five candidates. You can either vote for one of these, or add one yourself. Here are the five photos that I see in almost every corporate publication, and that I wish would be wiped out of corporate communication forever:

The Execution at Dawn photo. This is where you line up a bunch of team members against the wall and "shoot them." The only tension in this photo is, how does each person position his hands? Do you do the "fig leaf," and hold them in front of your crotch? Do you put them behind your back? At your sides? In your pockets? The drama!!!

By the way, this wonderful designer woman in one of my seminars gave me the "Execution at Dawn" name for that photo, and I would give her the credit for it, but I don't remember her name. Are you out there, wonderful designer woman?

The "Hey, we’re having a meeting!" photo, where you show two or more people—preferably middle-aged white guys in suits—at a long table, with at least one person leaning into a microphone.

The "grammar-school class picture" photo, where the "photographer" lines up way too many team members for a group shot, resulting in a picture where each person's head is roughly the size of a cheerio and you can't tell who anybody is.

The "employee at work" photo where an obviously posed worker is doing his best not to look at the camera.

And, of course, everybody's favorite, the "grip and grin" shots, where employees are given awards, and the photographer is able to catch that magic moment when both the presenter and the receiver of the award have their hands on the award at the same time.

Okay . . . vote for one of those . . . or add one of your own.