I try not to get too involved in these blogs/forums – I still believe the Internet is just a fad. But, here I am responding to your question about corporate videos.

A decade ago, when I worked for a different, though larger company, we produced talking head videos that were distributed to management to use in department meetings. The reason we did them was to show senior leadership support of programs, as well as to ensure a consistent message was delivered. Though it was a big company, employee communications wasn’t very important, and holding mass employee meetings was almost unheard of (a much better way to show leadership support).

Most of those videos I was proud of – content-wise. Production-wise, well, our goals (stated above) didn’t necessarily mean we needed to invest too much in production quality. Besides, had we done so, we would have lost our audience, considering most of the messages were related to controlling costs.

Did the videos accomplish their goals? I don’t know. Employee communications there was an afterthought, so there was no measurement. (I’d tell you the name of the company, but have no idea how their practices have changed over the past 10 years, so it would be unfair to judge them. Its name/brand ranked among the top five in the world in those days….)

Today, however, I’m dealing with a whole host of different monkeys. Employee communications is quite important at this company, and the OCE (chairman and president) take it quite seriously. We hold about five mass employee meetings a year, and about 10 management meetings. Each of these meetings is videotaped, and the videos are made available to all through our Corporate Library.

The production value of these videos is only as good as the meetings/presentations themselves. (The auditorium where the meetings originate is equipped with a couple of built-in cameras, so the folks in the booth can “edit” in different views as the meetings progress.) They are used quite a bit by management, as well as by those employees who want to isolate a single statement to “prove” they are somehow being screwed by the company. (“Hey! You said six, not five, at the employee meeting – I’m holding you to it!”)

We do the occasional video where production values are more important – more like commercials for programs than anything else. These are fun, but I’ve never put much stock into them.

So, yes, we use videos. No, we do not spend any money on them. No, we’re not concerned with high production values – just something you can watch and follow to see what you missed at the latest meeting, so that you stay in the loop on certain matters. Under no circumstances would there not be some supporting materials/other communications, anyway.

I think that the bottom, bottom line is that it takes someone effort to watch a video – find a room, find a machine, find the time to sit and watch, stay focused. With a publication, I can come and go to it whenever and however I please. As such, our efforts are spent on the latter.

Have a groovy day!

Years ago, as a new communications director of a nonprofit, I asked a local TV Public Service Director what he thought of a 30-second PSA targeted at teen girls. He didn't like it, so we didn't run it in my market. Later i found that, in markets where the PSA had run, it had quite an impact on teen girls. Lesson learned: Consultants and PS directors, when not members of the target audience can often give wrong input.

I recommend you ask the employees what impact the corporate video had on them. And why. I'd recommend getting something on the order of 80% feedback from the target audience, maybe 20% from a consultant. Consultants do play an important role in that they can bring in new ideas, but the employees can tell you whether or not their behavior has changed as a result of a corporate communication.

Steve, you need to start asking questions with EASY answers for a change.

Being famously allergic to spending budget dollars, I am regularly astounded by the costs of video. Yes, there are simple, homegrown solutions (and we do use em) but once you get into productions, look out. A few shoots, and I could have hired a headcount.

Ive taken to using video when I can glom onto an existing event. This peek "into a management meeting" gives the video (dare I say it?) a voyeuristic feel - like you are seeing something you otherwise would not have access to. And in this environment, people are more accepting of little or no production values - after all, if you are a fly on the wall, you are no expected to have perfect lighting etc. And as Dave noted above, I produce em quickly and easily on my home machine. Videos seem to be one of those things that have a loyal minority of the total audience. But expanding their reach has been a challenge.

One anectode, taking it back to "its all about content": A few years ago, we filmed our sector prez talking about workforce reductions, and debuted it literally minutes after the ugly news went out. Accesses were, as you might imagine, record setting. The process was simple and straightforward enough that the Prez was agreeable to a series of these videos about regular business matters. And numbers dropped off a cliff. Same guy (good presenter), same technology, but the burning platform was no longer burning.

Steve N

OK, so my experience wasn't really a "corporate" video but it was impactful.

A few years ago one of our employees was severely injured in a work accident. He lost his right forearm and hand, almost lost a foot and was on long-term disability for four years.

When he returned to work, he wanted to share his experience with his fellow employees. He wanted to tell them to use him as an example of why it's important to follow the company's safety rules and programs.

He told his story to a training class and we taped him. His 50-minute talk was edited to 21 minutes (as well as an eight-minute '"executive summary"). The video was shown first within the employee's organization and to the company's senior management. Then, we streamed the short version of the video on our Intranet homepage.

The results were very gratifying. The employee's heartfelt story brought many employees to tears. More copies of this video were purchased than any other video our department's previously produced. As a result, he has been in demand as a speaker at departmental safety meetings.

Our company has many locations scattered throughout the state plus one location in a neighboring state. Without the video, there is no way this employee's story would have reached so many of his co-workers and had such an impact. It was worth the time and effort.

But, I hasten to add that it was not a fancy production with carefully placed lighting and sound. We used the room's available lighting and a clip on mike. Kind of like taping you, Steve, during one of your training sessions.

Colleen

Hi Steve,

If, as the Gartner Group reports, only 5% of the average workforce understands the company's vision and strategy; and if, as ExecuNet reported in a survey of 406 employed executives, 62% are not satisfied with their current job and of those who are not satisfied, 97% plan to change jobs in the next six months, (money is not the primary reason); one would have to conclude there's a real disconnect out there in corporate America. We think this has a lot to do with the way employees are communicated to - or more likely - not communicated to - by the leaders of their organizations.

However, no one needs a video. They need a solution to a business problem. This deceptively simple insight directs our approach to communication projects, and how we measure success. At Mountain View Group, we don't start with concepts, we start with needs and objectives. And that means asking the right questions. At the excellent Ragan Communication Leadership Summit last May, Linda Boff, Director of Employee Marketing at GE spoke about "How to Keep Employees Motivated and Performance High" - We're just putting the finishing touches on an employee engagement video for GE Corporate, which I think very accurately illustrates the concepts Linda presented at the conference.
I can assure you, Steve, GE - (as well as the other Fortune 500 companies we're privileged to work with) - do not "just spend money." There must be a business case, and a clear ROI. In the case of the GE project, a tremendous effort has gone into this project, on the part of GE and MVG. Linda has involved communications leaders in every GE division throughout the process to ensure everyone has an opportunity to contribute, to feel ownership. Therefore, when the video is released (based upon a very detailed strategic plan and roll-out including collateral materials) - it will NOT be "just another video from corporate" - it will be "our" video. I think that is perhaps one of the most common problems large global organizations make when creating videos - there's a total disconnect between headquarters and the divisions/businesses they're trying to communicate to. You can make a great looking/sounding/amazing corporate video - but if you do so in a vacuum, you'll get a luke-warm reception at best. However, if you use the process of inclusion Linda has employed, you can be reasonably assured of a successful outcome. Yes, it is a lot more work, more time, more effort. But it's worth it.

I too, would be happy to share our demo reel with you, some of which exists on Mountain View's website. www.mvgltd.com

Best regards,
Peter Clayton
Senior Strategist/Writer-Director

THanks for your post, Peter . . . and you are absolutely right. I think many communicators do it ass backwards . . . and start thinking in terms of which vehicle they should use first, instead of figuring out what they want to accomplish and then getting down to tactics.

Could you shoot me an e-mail at steve@crescenzocommunications.com. I'd love to take a look at this engagement video. Thanks.

Steve C.

I've been slow to get back to this question and read the responses. Though I'm tempted to hit a few points here and there, instead let me just recommend a great video on this subject (what a coincidence). T.J. Larkin made a great presentation at last June's IABC Conference titled, "Intranet, Paper, or Face-to-Face?" He received a standing ovation. For corporate communicators, this is Must-See-TV. I cannot recommend it highly enough. For a limited time, you can order the DVD from IABC at http://www.tangibledata.com/iabc

I'm a little late to the party, Steve, but I've posted some thoughts on the topic at

http://www.ideagrove.com/blog/2005/11/corporate-videos-can-be-worth-every.html

Your post proves that "oversimplified" statements can lead to excellent discussions.

I think I have yet one more thought to throw into this discussion...

Like Peter, we work with GE and a number of Fortune 100 companies, and I think the one aspect of video you have overlooked is how well it serves a global business, especially when it is used live.

Streaming and Satellite broadcasts make it possible to deliver a uniform message to all of your business around the world.

In our projects with GE, Xerox and JP Morgan Chase, we have found that "the event" of the broadcast was made as important as the reason for the broadcast. There is a proven effectiveness of bringing people together to watch and comment - even if only locally on the material. And the "delivery" ensured a uniform message.

Comparing the cost of sending senior managers around the world to deliver the message at individual meetings, the cost of a live global broadcast and the immediacy all add up to justify the expense.

I think it was Marshall Mcluhan who noted that people watch video differently from film or anything else. Video has the ability to capture an audience's attention. Video can be a very personal delivery medium, And each person watches it individually, even when they are in large groups. Equally, the average viewer has developed a reasonably sophisticated expectation when they sit down to watch video, so our clients are constantly expanding their creative horizons to keep people watching.

I think communicators like Beth Comstock and Linda Boff at GE and David Nolan and Fred Hill at JPMC identified the value of the immediacy and the effectiveness of the live broadcast.

Many of our best broadcasts have been multi-site inteactive broadcasts. Interestingly almost all of them have been produced in English only.

And we're not done... every single client is now evaluating Pod-casting and other media delivery to enhance their communication platform.

-Bob
CONOVER PRODUCTION Svcs, LLC

DATE: 08/09/2005 28:02:7P PM
Thanks, Steve, for posing an important question about business video. I’ve been producing, directing and writing corporate video for nearly 30 years, so of course I’m biased. But I think what I have to say will withstand any skepticism about my bias. Most of the companies I’ve produced for have been well-known corporate giants – several of the major airlines, health care, automobile, energy, technology and consulting firms.

These organizations can often afford to throw money at several different media, which is frequently a good strategy simply because people have different learning styles. Some can’t even read! See how much good a memo or brochure does you with that audience.

But I’ve also helped quite a few younger, leaner organizations whose top management was committed to empowering employees with both information and inspiration. Effective video communication does not have to be expensive. In fact, I frequently produce simple, inexpensive, time-sensitive video employee briefings that are distributed on a combination of DVD, tape, intranet, and even e-mail.

My main point, however, is that video is unquestionably superior to prose for certain tasks:

1) Inspiring and motivating – a well-crafted video is just like a feature film. The messenger controls the pacing and mood. Artful combination of music, voice and image can elicit an emotional response in an audience that’s difficult to achieve in print. Rarely do hearts race or hands clap after reading a memo. Through video, employees, investors, the public or other audiences can really catch the excitement of an executive’s or company’s vision or product.

2) Establishing credibility – Employees are the most skeptical audience around, and they know spin when they read it. Any company can direct a writer to pen rhetoric, even lies, and then print and distribute same. Only careful fact-checking can establish their veracity. Certainly an executive can appear on-camera in a video and deliver the same spin, but it is much more difficult to conceal a lie when your audience can look you in the eye. That’s the most common reason clients ask me to put their executives on tape for employee consumption - believability. Executives who are natural-born communicators are trusted by audiences when they can be seen and heard.

Sure, it can be more difficult to set up a screening than it is to blast out an e-mail or a newsletter. But how often is the e-mail set aside and forgotten before it’s read? Sometimes an audience loves to have a reason to sit and watch a movie. Plus, more and more firms are delivering video to the desktop, requiring no meetings, no A/V setup, etc.

Finally, corporate video is enjoying resurgence because advances in technology have made it possible to create top-quality pieces on a Mac or PC, even a laptop. Effective video still requires the hand of an experienced pro, but no longer is it a necessity in every case to schedule a large crew, dubbing and editing facilities weeks or months in advance. Today I can make a quick revision to a video and burn a new DVD for a client between morning coffee and breakfast. I’m actually taping a CEO at the O’Hare Admiral’s Club tomorrow during a stopover. I’ll edit and author the DVD when I get back to my office on Friday (a day delay because I have a shoot in Boston Thursday), and employees across North America will have access to his message on the Intranet next Monday and have DVDs on Tuesday.

I’ve tried not to be too long-winded here. I’m not familiar yet with blog etiquette, so I hope it’s okay to invite anyone interested in more thoughts about this to contact me at 800-721-2477. I can direct you to some essays on this subject at my web site or even share some samples. Steve, if it’s a no-no to make this offer, I trust you’ll edit out my phone number and give me a good talking-to! And if you want more proof, I'll be glad to send you some samples and Gold Quill-winning work plans.

Dave Gardner
Producer/Director/Writer
Visions West

DATE: 08/15/2005 72:05:3A PM
What a wonderful conversation!!! Once again, I think I oversimplified things (Video: bad or good?) and got called on it. Thanks for the thoughtful replies . . . it's assinine to say whether or not a vehicle is worth the money . . . if it's done right with a stragegic purpose it is . . . and if it's not, it isn't.

And the general thread here also seems to be that video can do things for you that other vehicles simply cannot do. And I would agree with that.

I'm also intrigued by the idea that technology is making it a lot simpler to do this, and a lot less expensive. And I imagine, without knowing what I'm talking about, that distribution is a heck of a lot easier, too.

Dave, could you direct me to your Web site? Or shoot me an e-mail? I'd love to see some of what you've done. In Ragan Report, we don't profile video nearly enough, and we should do more on it.

Thanks again, everyone, for the wonderful posts.

Steve C.

DATE: 08/16/2005 20:30:3P PM
We use video for safety issues, training for many of our employees in specific crafts and issues that affect service for our customers. For employees, we produce a quarterly news format video that features our CEO and our new president talking about quarterly financial results and strategic direction. We include two or three feature stories that show examples of how we're achieving our goals. Each packet includes talking points for presenters and an evaluation form. We designed the video to be presented at a face-to-face session where those viewing the program are encouraged to talk about the "big picture" ideas in the program and connect those ideas to what happens in their workplace. They're also encouraged to make suggestions to improve safety and service. The program is well-received, and having that evaluation form come back is very helpful. One of the questions we ask is about ideas for stories, and we get some very good ones. It's a good tool for us with a work force spread out over 20 states and a large percentage of it mobile. It helps people stay connected to the big picture. We also were able to introduce our new president and give him a forum to set his agenda for the company as he moves toward being elected CEO early next year.

I think video is a hugely underutilized medium in employee communications, largely because, until recently, it's been nearly impossible to distribute it effectively. With the emergence in recent years of streaming video to the desktop, it's now possible to reach all employees who have computers so the can all watch at the same time, or at their convenience.

In corporate print publications, it's too easy to just make up stuff and pretend it's real. It's much harder to to that in video, and that's a good thing. You get to actually see the person, and hear the words coming out of their mouth, and see what the heck they're doing.

I honestly believe that streaming video is the next 'killer app' in the corporate world. It's going to be one of the things that re-humanizes the workplace, and I can't wait for this revolution, which has already started, to take hold. Companies like TELUS, UPS and Reuters are all doing fantastic work in this new medium. I think we're going to see a lot more in the coming year or two as we see the YouTube phenomenon seep into the corporate world.