The discussion in “Strike a different bargain with online video” written by Mark Briggs centers around the level of quality videos need to be in order to be successful on the Web.  When newspapers started publishing videos online, many editors felt they had to look similar to the videos that broadcast stations aired during typical newscasts – very polished with titles, transitions etc.  However, more recently, newspapers have began publishing videos that have only been roughly edited or were produced by citizen journalists on cell phones or digital cameras.  The question is, does it matter?  Does one work better?

The video examples that Brigg’s gives are from two journalists who specialize in tech stories, one from The New York Times, David Pogue, who spends a lot of time editing his work, and another from The Wall Street Journal, Walt Mossberg, who does little editing and inserts few “special effects” into his work.  With this beat, I think the polished video is nicer.  Technology can be a pretty dry subject, and therefore the videos with more music, fun transitions, etc. are more interesting to watch.  However, in general, I don’t think it matters.

With breaking news and other big visual stories, I think being able to post something quickly (polished or not) is the most important thing.

For example, if a well-known building catches fire, if a city floods or if footage was captured of a really exciting sporting event, consumers won’t be looking for editing quality, they’ll just be looking for information.  In these cases, whichever news organization gets its video up first will probably get the most page views.

I think most websites are willing to post rougher videos.  Time-consuming editing has taken a back seat – for now it’s all about giving people the information they want quickly and getting a lot of site traffic.