This is not a “Kill the Press Release” post. So if you came here looking for a fight you’ll be disappointed. But I have noticed that while a journalists interest in a press release has almost completely disappeared their interest in raw video is insatiable. We were recently told by a journalist that they won’t run a single line from a press release but they’ll embed almost any video we produce because their readers and editors are demanding more video but they don’t have the time to go out and get it.

I had the pleasure of being on a PR Newswire panel #PRNFlux yesterday with three of the smartest people in digital journalism: Todd Bishop from TechFlash, Cory Haik from Seattle Times and Josh Belzman of MSNBC/BreakingNews and hosted by Michael Pranikoff.

If you want to know where the future of online news is heading watch Todd, Corey and Josh, they’re living it now.

One thing that came up in the session and has been a reoccurring theme I’ve noticed over the last year is the use of Web video in PR. While I’m not a videophile by any means I keep coming back to the topic more frequently.

Some of my more relevant posts are:

The rise of crappy pics and vids which I posted just over 1.5 years ago.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of people a day gaining this new capability via shinny new cell phones. I wonder what will happen as the Web is flooded with this content? I imagine we’ll see very similar trends that we saw when blogging took online publishing mainstream. Millions of people will upload content daily. The popular stuff will rise to the top, the niche content will find it’s place and the rest will be relegated to being enjoyed by a handful of friends and family members.

Video is Now a Must Have for Marketing and PR which I posted back in December.

If you or someone on your team isn’t regularly outfitted with a video camera you’re missing huge opportunities. Behind the scenes interviews. In the moment reactions. The ability to connect your online customers with your offline experiences is amazingly powerful.

On the panel, we were discussing the new capabilities that the social web enables and the topic came up twice about how online news outlets will run “raw” footage shot by a PR person and how often that video does better than the polished stuff.

Corey mentioned this story on Boeing’s 747-8 first flight and that the most viewed video was the footage shot from an employees camera phone not the well produced videos.

I shared the experience of when Microsoft’s first store opened in Scottsdale and the video that Todd/TechFlash, Engadget, All Things D and several other publications used was the shaky Flip cam footage I shot while running into the store. The footage is horrible but was the top viewed video in 15 countries and received over 200,000 views in the first week.

When Michael asked Corey and Todd why they felt comfortable using the raw footage they both responded that it felt more authentic and had less marketing spin on it.

In both cases the footage was never intended to be picked up by the media and had little to no production cost.  A normal 30 second video can easily cost thousands to script, shoot, edit and distribute. Other than my time the Microsoft Store footage cost nothing. While it definitely could have benefited from some planning, better quality, someone that knew what they were doing and maybe a little post production I doubt it would have been picked up. The footage was raw and up within minutes of the store opening. (For more details: Being a Social Media Ninja)

My recommendation is, if you haven’t already, get a digital camera of some sort and start using it. Start using it A LOT.

I know there are a more than a few of my readers who regularly work with video, do you have any tips on how to produce “raw” video that actually looks good?