When I meet nonprofits who want video, they tend to start the conversation with questions about quality and equipment. I’m not sure why. I have this feeling that as video became less controlled by media and agencies, and more accessible to companies and organizations, marketing managers adopted some of the old ideas about what “production” means. They adopted a benchmark for what video should look like.
I always wonder, “How did they decide on this level of quality?” “How do they know the viewer wants this?” When I ask, some tell me it’s because they have deep audience data that demonstrates high quality is best. Sometimes they want it as part of a larger campaign. That makes sense. They have money, data, and a distribution plan. However, the common answer I hear is “we don’t know” or “we liked ABC Charity’s video.” This organization is relying on the video alone to raise awareness. To me, that’s risky. It’s a gamble of money and time. For the organizations without audience data or an ad agency on their side, I suggest we take a step back and rethink two things: quality and viewer context.
Video quality is tricky
“High quality” means high production; nice cameras, microphones, lighting, scripts, etc. Aiming for high quality is tricky because it’s subjective. Today’s variety and ubiquity of video changes established ideas of quality. Organizational beliefs and the viewer’s opinion about quality are unlikely to align. Viewers judge the quality of videos based on many things:
Most of the listed items are not in the organization’s or the video maker’s control. Maybe an organization with existing audience data that proves their audience responds to high quality videos could continue to make so-called high quality videos, but all other organizations would just be guessing.
Setting out to make high quality/high production videos locks organizations into spending time and money from the start. They will spend time learning the videography hiring process. They will spend money on the videographer’s tools which may include: assistants, lighting, audio-visual equipment, licences, insurance, as well as the time for writing, approving, revising, storing files, and more. Usually, the organization is left with a beautiful video that will have difficulty adapting to multiple platforms. I recommend against buying a high-quality video before knowing the audience even needs it. Here is an alternative approach.
Viewer context
Imagine buying a billboard but your audience never goes outside. Imagine distributing brochures at the bus stop but your audience is at the golf course. Imagine hosting a webinar but your audience doesn’t have a stable internet connection. Billboards don’t work just because they are big. Videos don’t work just because they move and have sound. Videos — like any other format — must meet the needs of the viewer where they are and how they want it.
Example of a new immigrant and their context:
A new immigrant spends their days between job-searching and settling their family in. In a rare break, they grab their mobile device. They search on Google: “job immigrant Winnipeg.” A video shows up on the first page titled: “Job help for immigrants in Winnipeg.” It leads to YouTube. It features a person talking for two minutes, and a description box with clear next steps.
Where they are: Winnipeg
Circumstances: Juggling basic needs of family, relying on mobile device (simplicity would benefit a small screen)
What they are doing: Searching for basic information in their city
What they are given: A video of front desk answering their need and clear steps
In this example, we describe the location, tools, circumstances, and typical needs of the focus audience. With this information, we base our video quality on “let’s meet their needs in their context.” In this context they need help, not entertainment. It’s reasonable to keep the quality clear, simple, and useful for a mobile screen.
There are benefits to this approach:
Final thoughts
While the interest in higher quality video itself is not a problem, the time, cost, and emotional risk is too high. You just can’t know if the quality has any effect on the audience. It’s like paying for thicker paper for a business card on the belief that it’ll influence them to call you.
Base your decisions on viewer context. The video will feel like “I took the time to understand your needs. Here I am for you.” The video will be like staff members in-person who do back-and-forth conversations, assess needs, and respond. This approach is doable, affordable, and personal.
You could choose:
(a) to aim for quality from the start and get estimates for $3000–$10,000, with no proof that your particular audience will find it useful and take action from it, or
(b) context-based video that answers precise needs, that costs $0 to start (maybe more later as you test and grow), has a strong hypothesis that your particular audience will find it useful and take action from it, and is so affordable you could continue testing and evolving.
When a video shows up where you are, understands you, and answers your question, you will click on it.
Quality doesn’t matter.
Think of the last time you searched for “fix leak bathtub” or “squirrels digging my lawn.” Think of being mid-scroll on LinkedIn and you see “toxic coworker.” You likely watched that homemade, low production video and didn’t mind its quality. You might’ve even noticed it has thousands of views with comments expressing gratitude. Show up where people need you most.
David Phu teaches small nonprofits to do their own video marketing. Simple videos help donors and clients see you and make decisions. For more information: Nonprofit Video Comms, LinkedIn.
