I think most people who are interested and/or involved in short form video content creation can agree that there is a general lack of cohesion and identity for projects produced for mobile and web platforms. This can be partially attributed to the fact that the space is relatively new and lacking in rules, definition and models. However, I think another large part of it has to do with the stigma that exists against short form content. A large part of the entertainment community still view short films and online content as inferior to the feature, or as merely a means to an end, which is again, the feature. Few people have embraced the idea of the short as an end in itself, and as a result, I think there is a lot of room for someone to take control of the concept and really define what digital short form content is. There are a few scattered story architects out there producing stunning and engaging content for web and mobile platforms--
Laurent Tartour for one--who really seem to get it. However, they're concerned with the individual work, and not the overall identity. Until someone steps up and successfully tackles this ambitious branding crisis, I think web content will continue to be viewed as the bastard child of the feature, and never live up to its inherent populist qualities or commercial potential.
I'm not saying that any of the suggestions listed below are the right answer, or even the best answer, but I wanted to get the conversation started. What do YOU think the answer is? Leave your comments, please!
What Should Web and Mobile Platform Video Content Be Branded As?
Labels: Laurent Tartour, shorts, web content
2 Comments:
In my opinion a brand is not a name. A brand is the overall feeling consumers have towards your organization or product, how they perceive you. When a company 'brands' themselves, they are attempting to sway how consumers perceive them. In other words, changing a name and a logo is not changing a brand.
With that being said, I think your idea is interesting. The problem is that you are taking on too broad of an area. Web and mobile platform video content has a name: web and and mobile video. Trying to change what people call it, whether it be webisodes or digial shorts doesn't really accomplish anything.
HOWEVER, if you define your idea a bit more and create something that is unique and valuable, then it would be worth branding. So for example, online video does not compete with features. That's because there is tons of crap out there and anyone can put up a short video. But perhaps there is a small niche of online videos that are treated with the same amount of respect as features. High production value, real filming crew, etc. These types of shorts, the ones that you traditionally think of when you hear 'shorts' seem to be in a different genre than the videos most people post. This concept may be worth branding. If so, the first step would be defining how this unique form of entertainment is valuable...how is it better than both crappy videos and features? Basically, it would have the high quality of a feature, but take significantly less time to consume. Putting this unique value into a name and tagline would be one step in the right direction.
Sorry for the long comment!
Apollo - thanks for your valuable insight! You're right, a brand is more than just a name. However to make something palatable to the mass market I think a concept needs an attractive name or catchphrase, and "short form content" or "web and mobile video" doesn't really cut it. There's a big difference between referring to a movie as a "video" and referring to it as a "film". I want short films with high production value and complex concepts and themes to be set apart from keyboard cat and david at the dentist. I think the first step in doing so is to create a brand name that speaks to this, much in the same way that the word "cinema" evokes a certain set of values.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home