MuseumsAndTheWeb.QuickAndDirtyVsLongAndClean History
Hide minor edits - Show changes to markup
April 11, 2007, at 10:57 AM
by -
Changed lines 1-29 from:
Which is better, a highly produced, great sounding, time-consuming podcast, or one that is off the cuff, not so great quality audio, but maybe more frequent?
to:
Quick and Dirty vs Long and Clean
Quick and Dirty
Pros
- Easier to produce
- Can be easier than blogging or writing an article.. just talk to someone
- Frequency of new podcasts / vodcasts can be higher than produced versions
- Cheap! Minimal equipment needed
Cons
- Audio quality might not be that great
- Not editing out uhmms and ahhs
- Unrefined nature might not match image of institution
Long and Clean
Pros
- Audio quality higher
- Subject matter more researched
- Production value higher, uhhmms and ahhs edited out
- More concise nuggets of information
Cons
- Production setup can be drawn out
- Less frequently updated
- Significant monetary investment
Discuss – What works for your institution?
April 09, 2007, at 04:17 PM
by -
Added line 1:
Which is better, a highly produced, great sounding, time-consuming podcast, or one that is off the cuff, not so great quality audio, but maybe more frequent?