I've made a blog post out of a response to a comment on another post:

The Comment

Here's where most people in the industry miss the mark when it comes to video compared to virtual tours:

1. The REAL power in video is the portability.  It is not about "putting all your eggs in one basket".  Just because it's on YouTube doesn't mean anyone will see it there.  People don't shop YouTube for Real Estate.  Learn how to place it around through links and more importantly . . . emdbedding. 47% of people are more likely to puch a play butting than click a link on a website.
2. Video is the preferred media source for internet users. 
   1. 130+ million video are watched online each month with average view of 2.7 minutes.  Indidivuals watch an average of 3 hours per month (about 67 videos).
   2. Video is one of the most shared things on the internet.
   3. 84% of home buyers are using the internet for an average of 8 weeks before taking the next step.
   4. Those choosing a Realtor look for 2 things - honesty and integrity.
3. Put the above things together, look at what's out there, and you find the biggest problem with video in Real Estate . . . format and quality. 
   1. Realtors have to be in front of the camera and it is in their best interest to be becaue you have about 2.7 very valuable minutes to make an impression about your honesty and integrity.  Still photos and "canned" bios don't do it.  Ever read about someone and get one impression then you meet them and your whole opinion changes?  Same concept.
   2. You have to keep their interest by being yourself and give a great presentation about the house with voice overs.  Speak like you would about the property if you were showing to a buyer right then.
   3. Slideshows are not videos. 
   4. Stop trying to do it yourself and producing the "Blair Witch" project for Real Estate.  You have done nothing but a disservice to the seller.
   5. Get a tripod, learn about compression rates, and boost the color up. (if you want to venture down the DIY)
   6. Get a wireless clip-on mic.  Sound is extremely important. (if you want to venture down the DIY)
4. Plan where you are putting the video across the internet and use a more industry specific player.  YouTube is definitely a place to be, but I do not suggest using it everywhere because of what pops up at the end whic is suggestions that could lead your view away. Plus even with great compression settings, YouTube's player still lack in quality of the video compared to others. 
5. Do an "About Me" video and put that on your website.
6. Tips and How-To's are an ever increasing genre in the video world.  More rich content, brings more people to you and coming back.

Video can truely be an investment in advertising rather than an expense if produced right and with maximum and effective use of the portability power.  And sorry, but this is kind of sore spot for me right now in this industry.

My response:

BW:  I agree with you and disagree with you on several points. 

Point 1: The REAL power in video is the portability. Completely agree with you that the power is in the portability. We've been preaching that very message consistently since 2006 when the few other real estate video companies seemed more focused on twirling ceiling fans as the main draw of video. I'll even extend your thinking to add that the power is in portability while maintaining branding regardless of medium. That said, the cut and paste model of online video is and has been one of the most limiting factors to developing effective portability solutions.

The tools for taking advantage of branded video portability aren't the best - current tools focus on the video rather than the marketing.  This is where we are focusing our efforts.

Point 2: Video is the preferred media source for internet users. Disagree. Please know that even though I own a real estate video company, I'm neither optimist nor pessimist -just a realist.  It'd be pretty hard to legitimately argue that text and images aren't the preferred media sources on the internet. There are plenty of arguments to convince agents to use video in their marketing plan but I'm not sure that any of the ones that mentions would be compelling enough to overcome objections to the costs. My point isnt to tear you down here - it's to say that there are simply more compelling reasons out there. For example, subpoints #2.1 and #2.2 have little to do with home buying behavior - just like in real life, what people do for entertaiment may have little correlation to the things they do when buying a home. Point 2.3 can be used to support any form of media on the internet - tell me again why this is a more compelling reason for video?

You wont sell much video simply because it's video....the medium has to be able to stand on its own two legs as a means of cost effective advertising.

Point 3: Format and quality are the biggest problems. I agree in concept but disagree with the proposed implentation

3.1: REALTORS have to be in front of the camera. I think that point #3.1 shows one of the bigger problems with the real estate video industry and to some extent with many of the supporting technology providers - many of the video providers look at the real estate space from a technical standpoint and essentially dont understand the home buying process. Why would would we introduce the selling agent as a factor in the house buying decision process when they are a person that likely will have little to no meaningful interaction with the buyer? People naturally judge what they see...thats why TV is filled almost exclusively with "beautiful people". By removing the agent from the property video, you're allowing the viewer to make judgements only on the property rather than the property AND the agent. The potential downside here far outweighs any upside in my view.

3.2: Keep interest by being yourself Wouldnt keeping interest via good editig and tight copy for the property be better? As a friend of mine always says, Coca cola wouldnt be nearly as popular if it was marketed as a brown bubbly liquid. Can you see how that may appear that video providers are using the agent in front of the camera approach  as the path of least resistance and an excuse to not have to really work on sound production value? This approach shifts responsibility for the success/failure to the agent who normally isnt the expert in this.

3.3 Slideshows are not videos in other news, a Chevette isnt a Lexus....but both might get you to work and both appeal to market segments for different reasons. Once again, there are plenty of valid reasons why video might be more effective than slideshows but arguing this from a purely technical perspective simply isnt compelling.  I'd ask you to rephrase this into "slideshows are not as effective as video because..." Hint: the rationale that follows the "because" should be compelling enough to have folks shell out real dollars as the price of virtual tours gets commoditized to near zero.  Once you've done that, then you can build a real business around real estate video.

Marketing dollars are attracted by the effective and compelling - the industry in general needs better arguments.

3.4 Blair Witch - With anyone and everyone hanging out their shingle as a real estate video professional after buying an HDV camera, there are plenty of professionals that could use the same advice.

3.5 and 3.6: Competely agree.  You can get by with crappy video if you have solid audio.  The best camera and tripod in the world wont save a video with poor sound quality.

4. Plan where you are putting your video:  Put videos where buyers are. This is likely the second biggest problem with the real estate video industry - there is a fundamental lack of understanding around advertising and the metrics that your customers are using to measure success.  Look at it this way, the most known player in the US real estate video industry as of today STILL doesn't have any sort of real statistics reporting after 3 or more years in the business. That's just crazy. How can real estate video be viewed as an effective advertising vehicle when the metrics and, more importantly, the results from using it arent analyzed? I still read comments from providers that believe that 200 video views is effective despite a several hundred dollar price tag. Property videos are advertising and therefore need to be evaluated on their effectiveness as such.

The problem here may be that many providers know this and perhaps dont like what they see. We like what we see enough to routinely publish our customer results with using real estate video.

5. About Me Video:  Agreed.  It resolves the honesty and integrity issues that you mention above but in a forum separate from the property video itself. We have long been proponents of this approach.  We at Vidlisting have added a way that you can include profile videos on the same widget as a property video - those that use it seem to like the feature.

6. Tips - about video? home buying?  Is this something that the agent should do themselves?

Most online forums in the real estate video space focus on hardware, editing, and the technical side of video. Our Facebook group is shifting the focus of the real estate video discussion to marketing and discussing many of the points that I've brought up above.

If you are a Facebook member, please consider adding your thoughts to the conversation at http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=35098378273 on a longer term basis than just this blog post.

Tony

See Also:

- Video Views: A Measurement of Correct Content In Front Of Interested Buyers

- Understanding The Real Estate Video Space

- Why Arent Video Channels More Like...Well..Channels?

- Why Are We So Attached To The Youtube Model To Distribute Real Estate Video?