Given my reputation as perhaps the only person in the world to outwardly dislike the TimesCast, a couple folks have brought to my attention that its demise was just announced via the Roanoke development blog:
The announcement didn't offer any reason for the TimesCast's cancellation, except to blame all the other work that has to get done.
At the end of this week, we'll be wrapping up production on the final TimesCast on roanoke.com . . . We learned a lot of lessons in the two years since the work on the TimesCast began. We've applied those lessons to other Webcasts and to broader video efforts. It's because of those Webcasts and our plans to do more with video produced in the field that we've decided to move beyond the TimesCast.
Sounds like they're conceding the TimesCast took more time than it was worth, at least when compared to the pay-off offered by other projects.
It began as an experiment, with the idea to see whether original video could be shot, edited and produced within a matter of hours. It quickly became much more. It branched out from a brief, three-to-four minute production into a show that featured guest cameos, on-location remotes, interviews, music, movie clips, serials, Santa auditions and video teasers that played on the front of the Web site.
Baking into your culture an iterative design process helps to identify when something is working and when it should go in another direction. The key to innovation (or one of the keys) is failing fast. Apparently, it took two years to discover that spin-offs in the form of targeted shows based just on sports, or just on music, are more effective. In today's episode, TimesCast viewers were promised the upcoming announcement of yet another webcast, this one focused on entertainment.
Best of luck to the Roanoke folks on the spin-offs, and on using video as part of breaking news. What we've learned at HeraldTribune.com is that breaking news video is the No. 1 driver of video traffic. And it doesn't take very long to produce.
The list of TimesCast spin-offs, so far:
Comments (2)
Say, Lucas, would you care to share some video vs. slideshows numbers with us? Please?
Posted by Mindy McAdams | October 11, 2007 10:38 PM
Posted on October 11, 2007 22:38
I don't know that you'd find our slideshow stats very interesting. Our slideshows (photo galleries) are built in Flash and count as a single page view. We're not like the Times, which appears to count each photo as an individual page view.
We do between 60,000 and 70,000 plays per month in video. That's something like 300 to 400 plays per video clip. But the number for each clip varies considerably based on content. Timely and compelling breaking news video has generated as many views as our top stories.
Posting a regular video takes relatively minimal to zero effort by the Web team when things go smoothly. This is because we have a TV station and are in the process of training them to send their own videos to the Web automatically. Talk to Melissa Worden on this since she runs the entire process on a daily basis.
Posting breaking video takes more effort because Melissa is rushing around to get it recorded from our live feeds, edited and posted. Takes about 20 to 30 minutes, when things go smoothly.
Always looking to improve our turnaround by streamlining the process.
Posted by Lucas | October 12, 2007 9:43 AM
Posted on October 12, 2007 09:43