It is as if Internet TV will replace TV so it should be way much better.

I just launched a food videocast called Blogger’s Treat that brings bloggers to their favourite food places in Singapore.

Since launching it, we had couple of critics on how it is not as good for TV.

But we admit to them that yes, we are not TV professionals, but we are working on improving the production as we go along with more episodes.

Bill Cammack gives tips on how NOT to do internet video.
Formats available:MPEG4 Video (.mp4)
……

I’ve found that doing a daily video show is far more important than doing something that’s highly edited.

In fact, editing often works against people in this industry. Why? Because I get access the others don’t. Why?

Well, one CEO told me about his experience being on CNBC.

They used his time for 10 hours. 10 hours!!! And then they used two minutes of that.

Me? I shoot for an hour and probably use 45 minutes. If it’s interesting, more. If it’s not as interesting, we will only shoot for 20 minutes. But I don’t hack them up to make them look slick or be entertaining.

If you want entertaining, go watch the puppet show.

If you want to hear from the guy who mentored Tim Berners-Lee then watch http://www.fastcompany.tv

It’s not perfect, but where else are you able to get that kind of depth and conversation? Hint: no where.

It’s the hard work that Shel and Robert do know how or aren’t willing to do.

The result is hap hazard videos that are painful to watch. Camera work has little to do with it.

In general, the problem that I see repeatedly with internet video is that people and companies don’t want to budget for quality. Instead, they choose to focus on the ‘bottom line’, which is hits. As long as they can get people to go to their site and click play, they have no incentive to make quality videos. It doesn’t matter if their videos are 19 minutes long, so long as someone presses play. It doesn’t matter if there isn’t any editing or poor framing or poor lighting or shaky-cam or ANYTHING, because it’s all about page views and video plays.

Unfortunately, and I’ve seen this IRL @ NYC meetups… There is a divide between content creators and the people who strive to make money OFF OF content creators. Most of the time, you see mass numbers of either, but never together in the same place. This is because the content is seen as a product and not actual video. The content is merely something to draw people to the site so they can sell advertisements and make their money back.

This creates a cycle, because the money-makers strive to get content cheaper and not better. When someone offers them a quality solution, it’s outside of their budget range because it works against the ‘bottom line’ AND they can’t demonstrate an ROI for doing better video.

IF companies were interested in quality, the obvious solution is a distributed workflow. Let everyone play their position and do what they do best. Let the on-air-talent do the interviews, let the editors edit, let the coders and designers handle the site creation. Unfortunately, I don’t believe this is actually going to occur in most situations, as companies rush to take advantage of the latest fad, UGC.

The only way a difference will be made is if someone actually DOES a quality production and can demonstrate the ROI for budgeting Quality Control into their productions. Show people the numbers, and they hop on the bandwagon… as usual.

however… the Shel debacle brings up a far more important issue for me that has nothing to do with video production or quality. The new media’s high school like, personality centric popularity contests have done little to set us apart from the main stream media we say we wish to better. If the new media community continues to celebrate, link to, blog about, and twitter about people who use bullying, intimidation and hate to get attention we continue to pave a future for ourselves that far more closely resembles the fox news sensationalism of the past then the brave new world of media democratization and integrity so many of us have envisioned.