Video is not always best for Place Branding (and maybe story telling in general)
With all the demand and angst about generating as much video as possible, I love this interview by CityNationPlace with Per Grankvist, Chief Storyteller for a government-funded initiative, Viable Cities in Sweden.
(Image courtesy of CityNationPlace)
Per made a pertinent observation about use of photography vs video in story telling, which really stood out for me.
They have consciously decided to use documentary photography vs film/video for place branding, destination marketing, for story telling.
“… everything we do is documentary photography. A film offers too much information, and you don’t have time to think for yourself. Plus, films always have cuts, so you already know that it’s fake. ..”
And you know what I agree, a video fills in all the gaps whereas a photo leaves room for the imagination, it leaves room for wanting more, for inviting investigation, for maybe visiting that place to see for yourself.
So often less is more. In the rush to video - it’s food for thought.
References
CityNationPlace interview with Per Grankvist, Viable Cities in Sweden
Happy branding :)
Video is not always the best for Place Branding (and maybe story telling in general)
Short article about the fact that maybe less is more when it comes to video vs image in Place Branding.