“We need more dynamic content” someone shouts across the office. Okay, there’s no shouting, but content that speaks – literally – is increasingly being used to engage audiences. But why choose video, or even audio, over an online article, for example?
What’s to be got from sticking a camera in someone’s face and asking them questions? Is the visual of a talking head so much more inspiring than their words on a website or in a newspaper?
Well, actually, yes. It does indeed depend on what the person you’re interviewing/talking to has to say. If they’re telling you about an update to the local bus timetable, a two-par filler will do. If an academic expert on conspiracy theories is explaining the different between a conspiracy theory and an actual conspiracy, it’s undoubtedly more engaging to listen/watch the explanation than to read it.
Here’s a couple of examples, all with minimal or no production…
Jill Reynolds’ interview with her 82-year-old self – a simple but effective idea!
Darren Rose, of Problogger, says the benefits of a talking head video on a blog is four-fold - it creates a personal connection with your readers and a good first impression; it engages with a different kind of person over a written post (brings out the lurkers!); lends itself very well to teaching and learning to allow people to visualise what you’re talking about/explaining. Video and text is an effective combination, he says, and can lead to higher conversions.
But if you have two people talking, two talking heads, flitting between those heads might not work so well and you don’t want to lose your audience to sea sickness. So maybe a podcast? This example is two people, who’ve produced a report on bisexuality, talking about it. There’s no visual element and two taling heads wouldn’t work so well but there’s chemistry between these two, they bounce of each other with no prompting and it makes for an engaging podcats, again with minimal editing.
What do you make of the ‘talking head’?