When it comes to building creative products from scratch, such as videos, websites, or even articles that contain mixed media, clients might not know exactly what they want. They may think they do, but they might not be aware of the components that are required to get the optimum results. They may be clear on the basic elements that would comprise the finished product (an upbeat narrative, engaging visuals, for example), yet not know the kind of approach to take or how the elements will work together to produce the most engaging user experience—even before they take into consideration their budget and time frame.
Recently we had a client who asked us to produce a series of introductory videos for a new digital curriculum program that they had developed. The program was designed for gifted middle-school students of diverse backgrounds, would be delivered online (without any print components), and accessed both in class and at home—what is often described as blended learning, and typically used in what is known as a “flipped” classroom.
The authors of the new course had been teaching from an older version that this updated digital offering would be replacing. The legacy course also had introductory (“talking-head”-type) videos, but the authors wanted to take a new approach to orienting students to the course content, which was now substantially different in an online format. They also recognized that the original videos were too long and boring, and did not adequately attract students, who were given a choice of options, to sign up to take this particular course. They wanted the videos to have a more contemporary, engaging aesthetic that would introduce the benefits of the course content while providing motivation for the students who would be tackling a challenging and accelerated program that crammed three years into two.
The client agreed that the videos should be narrated alternatively by a female and a male voice and include background music, as well as closed captions in order to be ADA compliant. They also agreed that each video should be no more than five minutes in length.
They would provide the scripts, which we would edit, as well as the visual elements, which would include static images, graphs, and photos. Our task was to make the scripts and the visuals come alive, and produce five or six finished videos that would appeal to middle-school students while giving them an overview of what they would learn in the course. That’s all the direction that they gave us. We did not have access to the course itself.
Before we got started, they showed us a sample script with images in a PowerPoint document. The script needed heavy editing but was usable; but we were concerned, from the samples, that the kind of images that they planned on submitting would be too simplistic and difficult to enhance for an animated video production. We were also concerned about resolution, since many of the images looked like they were second or third generation—certainly not originals. From what we were presented, it appeared as if some of the images would also have rights issues, which would be costly and time-consuming to resolve. We showed them a couple of sample videos that we felt could serve as models for a possible creative approach; they picked one that had the look and feel that they liked.
They said that they understood what the quality level of the images that we required had to be and that they could provide them.
Based on the agreed-upon length and style of the videos; the narrative approach; the addition of background music and optional closed captions; and the deliverables required from both parties, we were able to establish a time frame and costs, and wrote up a Statement of Work (SOW) accordingly.
However, we immediately ran into difficulty—more like a brick wall—when they sent us the first script and accompanying images. The script was workable, but it was too long and not written with the verbal informality required for a video presentation. But it could be shortened and made more concise and appropriate with a good edit. The images, however, were not usable. Some of them did have copyright issues after all, and could not be used without permission; and there was no time or budget to straighten that out. Others were of such poor quality as to be useless without a major overhaul. Some weren’t actually images but rather rough ideas that needed to be fully transformed into usable, quality graphics.
We realized that the authors simply did not know how to translate the hard work they did putting together the course into a visual synopsis. Their frame of reference was the written word, and their script and “storyboard” were rooted in that paradigm, a point of view that was not adaptable to the requirements of a concise, fast-paced video.
In short, the approach that we thought we could take—and signed up for—to complete the project was no longer doable. We had to go back to the drawing board and come up with a different way to produce the videos—and translate their vision into a visual narrative that would engage their audience and also do justice to their excellent course material.
Luckily our expert videographer/creative director was able to devise a creative solution that turned out to be even better (and faster) than we had originally anticipated. In fact, had the client not come up short in delivering appropriate graphic material, we might not have taken the approach that we did. Our original idea would have required more work and more time, and probably would have resulted in videos that were less successful.
In the end, we think the videos accomplished the client’s objective with flair and distinction. Fortunately, the client agreed. And most importantly, we delivered on time and on budget. Now, we’re eager to find out how teachers and the students taking the course like the videos, and if the videos will help them get oriented to the rigorous coursework.
Look at the results here (intro video) and see for yourself; let me know if you think we got it right. (Video#2; Video#3; Video#4; Video#5)
