As an adjunct to my post about marketing, here is something new I’ve been fooling around with — the audio clip. Using the not-quite-as-straightforward-as-it-seems software called Audacity (good name, though) I was able to record a short clip from A Clash of Innocents. This really was quite difficult. First of all, you have to make sure you remember to silence your environment — turn off the telephone, all the little dings your computer makes, move away from the rolling chair etc. It does work best when you use a headset. Putting the thing on made me feel like that old Lily Tomlin sketch (I’m really showing my age now, but…)
But I digress……the point is that I managed to make this audioclip and it’s now time to figure out what to do with it. It’s on my website here and now it’s on my blog. What do you think?
April by Sue Guiney
Just in case, here’s the link.
Video’s so easy nowadays that I think you might as well go the whole hog. Salt have some videos online. All you need is a cheap camera and free software. Years ago I put some stuff on
YouTube. I think nowadays people can do much better than those attempts.
Very clear reading, Sue! But as Litrefs says it would be good to see something alongside it too.
Thanks, litrefs and Clare. I think the idea is to use different formats for different platforms. But I agree, visuals would make this better. The film I already made (a few posts ago) does something completely different. Maybe next thing to do is take one of these audio clips and put some of the 1000’s of photos I have with it.
I think that would work well – you’ve got such great pictures.
It’s a difficult one. For the same reason that Audioboo hasn’t done as well as Twitter, I suspect that for quick access, text often works better. (I hardly ever listen to or watch anything online for more than 30 seconds – I haven’t got the patience.)
However the different media certainly do appeal to some parts of the audience. I’m not sure I totally agree with litrefs – the trouble with video is it’s quite difficult to make video that’s at all comparable to the sort of broadcast video we’re used to, while it’s quite easy to do near-broadcast quality audio. So video tends to come across as more amateurish…
I think it’s important to use all the formats as different people like different approaches. Video isn’t popular with some, who prefer just to listen. They say they find video distracting. Others are more tempted to watch and listen if they see video.
The need for various approaches is also driven by the importance of providing books for people who have disabilities. Audio is extremely important as so many people have poor eyesight.
Audio is also accessible even if people have slow old connections, which is the case in many countries, and for many in countries with high speed internet too!
I think Brian is right for some types of broadcast. For an author reading I do expect high quality, unless it’s an incredibly brief excerpt or a view of the author at their launch, which is fun.
Editing a video with pictures from Cambodia to go with this kind of audio isn’t difficult and we’re going to try that out too.
One final unusual thing I’ve noticed about audio. Although it can feel difficult to listen to excerpts, or even watch and listen to a long vidcast, this isn’t the case with audiobooks. I’m not sure why.
If I sit with my feet up listening to an audiobook, I can easily concentrate on whole chapters. In fact I prefer it to reading as I work so much on computer that it’s a complete treat and restful on the eyes.
For poetry I like to listen to it and read the text. I don’t really need to see a video. A video can tempt people to click on a link though, so it’s a handy quick promotional tool. But for a long session with a book I’d prefer audio.
I make broadcasts using audio plus animation, so I could have an animated version of Sue reading in a virtual world setting. I’m not sure how people respond to that althogh some love it. A worthwhile experiment perhaps?
People have offered some good reasons for including audio. I listen to iPod material most nights.
That said, I’ve come to expect YouTube quality on YouTube, and I suspect many others are used to that quality by now – not for a plasma screen, but ok for the WWW, and about as bog-standard as you can get nowadays.