Video journalist Angela Grant posed an interesting question on her blog today. She highlighted an extensive multimedia profile of Senator Ted Kennedy produced by the Boston Globe. Then she said:
“Pieces like this take tons and tons of time to produce. In my experience, they don’t draw the type of audience that you would hope. In your opinion, is this one worth it?”
As a viewer, I would argue that, yes, it is worth it. The videos are engaging and well-produced, while the supplemental photos and source documents provide rich context that are fascinating to explore.
But if I’m the boss having to approve the time and resources to produce the biography, then my response is, it depends. I’m sure the package will generate decent traffic from the Globe’s readers simply given the subject matter. But if the profile quietly resides on the Boston.com website among the dozens of other stories and features competing for viewer attention on any given day, then it may not be worth it.
So how can the Globe, or any newspaper (or media organization for that matter), financially justify packages like this? By distributing their best work beyond their own website. Assuming the Globe acquired all the requisite rights to the photos, videos and documents, they could post their video segments to YouTube for viewing, and to iTunes for downloading. They could also produce a multimedia DVD for sale to the public, or for use in schools. And maybe, with some repackaging, there are broadcast options via the New England Cable News channel, Boston public television station WGBH (and by extension, the greater PBS system), or The History Channel.
I believe media entities can no longer simply publish items to their own sites. We have to look for creative ways to push our content to a variety of different sites, audiences and platforms to maximize the number of people we expose to the work. And each additional venue we explore brings with it opportunities to generate revenue (from pre-roll ads to licensing to product sales) that can help recoup some of the production costs, and extend our particular brand name to new audiences.
Certainly not every multimedia package lends itself to ancillary distribution, but perhaps those that do can help fund the less glamorous but no less important day-to-day journalism we produce.
That’s a great solution! I’ve always been a big proponent of pimping out content all over the Internet (and beyond).
[...] on my post about Boston.com’s multimedia series on Ted Kennedy, and then later wrote a post further explaining his thoughts. I’m sure the package will generate decent traffic from the Globe’s readers simply given the [...]