It seems like the trend is video. Everyone is doing video but is it necessary to do so? I would rather start of doing audio only but if I have to I can get a camera.
Printable View
It seems like the trend is video. Everyone is doing video but is it necessary to do so? I would rather start of doing audio only but if I have to I can get a camera.
Since no one replied.... :)
I think it really depends on the show. I do all of our shows in video but also release them as audio only. Some are very visual so video makes sense but our "news style" shows work well as just audio. In fact I have one we do about cyber security that gets more audio downloads than video downloads.
I do not think there is anything wrong starting out as audio only if it fits your show. One thing about audio only is you need some nice intro and background sounds to fill in the space. When there is no video that just seems more noticeable.
I think it comes down to how you do your show. Many hosts now rely on video to sell the show. I still think audio is king
I don't think "necessary" is the right word for me at least.
I think video is better because I think people relate better when they can see facial expressions and body language. It's a more intimate connection. Depending on the programming, a show should be able to stand on audio though. This would allow people to listen to a podcast or live stream in the background if they're doing other things. I'd note that some of the best radio talk show hosts move on to video and generally they do quite well as it enhances the viewer host relationship.
They are different mediums though. In sports, radio play by play has to include more detail to paint the picture with words. With TV, play by play takes a supplemental role as the viewer can see what's happening.
The same can be said for live news. Watching a reporter stand in the middle of hurricane can be more dramatic that simply listening to a voice with lots of wind noise.
