« September 2007 | Main | November 2007 »

Mediasite - A Killer App?

The folks at Sonic Foundry sent me an email with a link to a little Halloween silliness they put together in the form of a Mediasite video presentation. The "movie" is designed to reference typical low-budget slasher flicks (think "Texas Chainsaw Massacre").

They are not afraid to show the fake blood and closeups of mock-fatal injuries common to such films. I suppose I'm the wrong audience for this, because I don't watch those kinds of movies in the theaters. That makes me a minority, judging from the incredible grosses (no pun intended, but nicely appropriate) of things like the "Saw" franchise, which exist solely to allow audience members to revel in graphic depictions of fictional characters getting whacked in the most gruesome and painful ways possible. There's no accounting for entertainment tastes. I like musical comedies, so that tells you how hopelessly out of date I am!

But I can't help but wonder about the choice of characterization in Sonic Foundry's homage. I get the concept point... Mediasite eliminates problem areas that plague other technologies. The difficulty for me was that the characters representing the technology limitations seemed very likable and sympathetic. They were average folks you could empathize with. They were lured out to the woods through no fault of their own, and then hunted down and killed off by a menacing, homicidal killer dressed in black and sporting an evil Darth Vader laugh. And he represents the company's own product, Mediasite!

So big points to Sonic Foundry for having some fun and getting in the full spirit of Halloween with all the effort needed to shoot, mike, and edit an outdoor mini film. But next time they might want to think about building a psychological empathy and fondness for their product, rather than making it seem like the worst thing you could ever come across!

Happy Halloween, y'all.

 

Increasing Your Webinar Attendance Rates

I received an email (actually a comment to one of my posts on typical webinar attendance rates) asking for advice and suggestions on how to improve attendance rates for training webinars. This email came from a vendor who works with independent franchise operators who sell the OEM's portfolio. He said he wanted to train them, get their attention, and motivate them to sell his services.

It's always tricky to answer a question like this in the abstract. I don't have any samples of past webinars they have put on, or invitations they sent out, or anything else to use as a basis for giving directed feedback. So we'll have to fall back on some basic best practices.

My guess is that the primary problem here is the trap that most companies fall into when creating and promoting webinars. Actually, it's the trap that most people fall into when giving live presentations or even speaking with others in private conversations. What is that trap? I'll tell you in a minute. But first, a short question...

Have you ever had a friend or family member who likes to tell you about their dreams? I don't mean their hopes and aspirations -- I mean each morning they announce, "I had the craziest dream last night. First I was riding a purple dinosaur across a desert, except it wasn't really a desert, it was kind of like that sugar they use in cotton candy machines..."

At about this point, just as they are getting really wound up and excited about the imagery, you start nodding off. Or plotting how to call your own cell phone so you can escape. Or calculating the number of years you'd get for justifiable homicide.

Webinars take time, money, and energy to produce. You do it because you have something important you want to impart. And because you believe that you are going to benefit by having people attend.

Have you spotted the trap yet? In both cases, the person doing the talking is thinking about their own experiences and objectives rather than those of the audience. Look back at my first paragraph. Notice that my commenter said "I want to train them, I want to get their attention, I want to motivate them." I, I, ay ay ay!

There is nothing wrong with having a goal and objective for yourself. You should. But when it comes to getting your audience involved, you need to turn the thought process around. What does your audience care about? What do they feel they need? What benefits are you offering them?

I titled this post "Increasing Your Webinar Attendance Rates." That gave you a clear and compelling promise of a benefit to you for taking the time to read it. There was a huge amount of power in that simple phrase. Notice I didn't mention anything about how brilliant I am or how I have facts and years of experience at my disposal, or how much success I have had in the past.

So tip #1 is to go back and scan your webinar titles and descriptions to see if they are establishing a clear and emphatic benefit to your audience that makes it worth their while to attend... Remember, it has to be obvious and explicit -- not implied.

Tip #2 is an embellishment on this idea that makes benefits even stronger for your audience. Give them a stake in the content. Bring them into the conversation before the webinar ever starts. It is remarkably easy to do this. Ask them a question in your registration confirmation email (or even better, right on the registration page). "What is the number one problem you have in attracting new customers?" or "What is the single most confusing thing about our Xycomeginy 2000 turnip twaddler?"

Promise that you will make a special point to address these concerns in your presentation. Now people have a reason to attend... You have told them that the content directly addresses what they care about. It's not just some canned presentation that might or might not be useful to them. If your registration software is powerful enough, you could echo back their question as a field inside the registration confirmation email they get. "Thanks for your question: [xxx] Make sure to attend to hear what we have to say about this and other questions from resellers like yourself."

Tip #3 is to cut down on the amount of content you try to cover within a single event. Instead of a 60-minute event that covers details about the product portfolio and selling tips and commission structures and your support infrastructure and rewards programs, try crafting a series of 30 minute webinars (15-20 minutes of presentation and the rest for Q&A) or a set of 5-10 minute recordings, each on a single topic point. People like having a single, clear focus for their attention. Some 19 years ago, during the 1988 presidential campaign, George Bush (Sr.) focused the country's attention on a single, clear topic point when he said "Read my lips. No new taxes." Suddenly all the clutter of many different political issues was reduced to one bold topic point that some people credit with swaying the election in his favor.

Tip #4 is to get a recording of your event posted and available for viewing as quickly as possible after the live session is over. Send both a thank you email to attendees and a "sorry we missed you" to non-attendees with a link to the recording. If your content was valuable, attendees will forward the link to their coworkers. Non-attendees have another chance to see the content. But the effectiveness of sending out the link goes down incredibly rapidly with time. Same day is best. Next day is acceptable. Next week is almost useless. If it will take time for the recording to be processed and posted, pre-set a URL where you will put it. Let people know immediately that this is where they should look. Then post a message on the destination page telling people to check back for the recording. Remember that recording attendees are just as valuable as live event attendees.

Tip #5 may sound condescending and trite, but it is a very real concern. Deliver a quality seminar. If you have given these webinars in the past and people found them to be unprofessional, they won't come back for more. If you need to, hire outside services to punch up your slides. Get speaker training for your presenter. Make sure you are fully rehearsed and comfortable in the presentation content. Use a professional moderator to handle technical aspects and to give a smooth, professional feel to the event. If you know an event went poorly in the past and you are hitting the same small audience, you may need to advertise (as a benefit, not an apology!) that you have made exciting new strides in the quality of the materials and presenters. Then deliver on that promise. Few webinar speakers truly care enough to put in the preparation time necessary to do a first class presentation job. When you hear one who does, it makes an impression!

That should give you a few starting points for examining your web events and making them more effective at getting people to register and attend. Good luck!

 

Live Meeting MWA Still A Mystery

Continuing my problem report from yesterday, I still have not been able to get the necessary ActiveX control to load so that I can upload and share a PowerPoint file when acting as a presenter in Microsoft Live Meeting Web Access mode.

Microsoft tech support has asked me to verify that I can install other ActiveX controls from other websites (I can) and then asked me to reset Internet Explorer back to its pristine state.

First I used the built in Tools button in IE7 to reset all settings back to the manufacturer's original state. But I didn't see any change in the behavior of that recalcitrant control.

So I was forced to reinstall Internet Explorer from scratch, downloading it from the Microsoft website, installing it, and applying updates through the Windows Update mechanism. That meant another few rounds of computer reboots and rechecking the ActiveX settings again. I made sure my antivirus program was disabled and tried to upload a file inside of Live Meeting. No luck. The program is as stubborn as ever and refuses to install the necessary control. Without it, I am stuck and unable to show my presentation.

I sure would hate for this to be happening to one of my customers as they attempted to get set up to deliver a webinar using the Web Access mode of Live Meeting!

 

Day One With Live Meeting 2007 - Web Access Problems

It turns out that while David Chao's article was correct about the size of the Microsoft Live Meeting client download, that is only part of the story. The Live Meeting installation information and product website recommends using the full client if possible, for complete functionality. That is indeed a 15MB download, with an installation disk space requirement of 125MB! The installation requires Microsoft Windows, as the EXE and DLL components are written only for a Windows operating system.

But there is an alternative. Live Meeting allows the use of "Meeting Web Access" (MWA), which lets you run the service from a web browser as a Java applet. The system requirements page lists supported platforms as Internet Explorer on Windows, Firefox on Windows (but only XP... not Vista!), Safari on Mac OS, and Firefox on Solaris. I called tech support and asked about Unix and Linux operating systems. The rep told me that those platforms may or may not work and they are not tested or supported. (By the way, Microsoft turned down my request for a briefing or interview, so all information here is via my own experiments, the official web pages, or tech support calls.)

I unsuccessfully looked around the website for a description of what functionality is lost when you access a meeting through MWA rather than the full client. Tech support helped me out again. I was told that you lose only the ability to share streaming video content and to use 2-way VoIP for voice communications.

I thought I would try to deliver my first test webinar as a presenter using MWA before I installed the local client software... Just to see how that worked for people who couldn't do the disk installation. The web applet loaded within about 15 seconds, which is reasonable. When I tried to upload a PowerPoint file to the meeting room, the program told me that I had to load an Active/X control. But no matter what I tried, the control refused to load. I turned off my antivirus software, I checked my Internet Explorer settings against the documentation and couldn't find anything blocking it. Yet it stubbornly refused to work. I called tech support and got a nice guy in Austin, Texas who stepped me through all the normal troubleshooting procedures (including my favorite... "Reboot your machine.") Still no luck. So he asked me to run a Microsoft system dump utility that amazed me. It ran for more than ten minutes. That's a lot of information! I sent in the data file and I'm waiting for a response from the "expedited problem" team.

Results of Day One: Zero success in performing the most basic function of presenting a PowerPoint slideshow via the web access console. I'm the first to admit that it is most likely a problem with a setting on my computer rather than anything inherent in the Microsoft program. But it is frustrating that we can't figure out what the conflict is and how to resolve it. This is supposed to be the easier and faster way to connect!

Keep checking in for more developments and tests.

 

Chao Disses Live Meeting 2007

Wow. Quite the rant from David Chao on his Web Conferencing Blog about the new Microsoft Live Meeting 2007 release. Chao works for WebEx, so he obviously has a vested interest in declaring product superiority against the next closest competitor (in overall web conferencing market share).

But he presents some interesting statements about the new Microsoft product version that are worth exploring. The one that really caught my eye up front is his first argument. He says that meeting attendees require a 15MB download before they can view a Live Meeting session. If true, that is simply too much for the current state of conferencing technology. People expect instant response and access to information. I know from my consulting work that meeting organizers are much more aware of this aspect of webinar production nowadays. They ask me all the time to recommend technologies that allow attendees to join sessions with a minimum of time and technical barriers. This wouldn't make Microsoft a favored choice.

I can't confirm or deny any of the specifics in David's blog piece, as I haven't had a chance to work with the new release yet. I'm working through the press hierarchy to get some insights from Microsoft on Live Meeting. I'll let you know how I do.

Microsoft UC And Live Meeting

I watched the Microsoft launch announcement webcast for their Unified Communications offerings this week. My interests (of course) centered on the role of Live Meeting web conferencing in the mix. I was hoping we might hear something about a general availability date for the 2007 release or more specifics on feature implementation. Live Meeting 2007 was announced back in June with an overview of the new features that were coming up. It was promised for "some time this Fall." Now I'm getting itchy to see how they deliver on the promise.

While there are some nice feature demonstration videos on the Live Meeting page, it's not the same as having them available in software to play with.

I was disappointed, but not surprised, to hear the way Bill Gates introduced the Unified Communications philosophy. He came out swinging at the telephone as an archaic communications vehicle and mostly emphasized how Microsoft was out to fundamentally change real time two way communications. A lot of it boiled down to being able to instantly speak to another person no matter where they are (a concept that still makes me cringe a bit).

A long demonstration used a fictitious business scenario to demonstrate the use of all the different communication channels in the UC lineup. Live Meeting was relegated to something of an afterthought, with a rapidly thrown together group meeting used to demonstrate the integration of the conferencing service with the new RoundTable conference room webcam. Apparently the demo also showed the potential pitfalls of using video in a live business context, as the presenter had to sheepishly grin while quickly cutting off the video feed after the prepared scripted scenario was over. We couldn't see what was happening on the webcast, but from his reaction and the audience's laughter, I would guess that the actors in the conference room didn't realize the camera feed was still on and "broke character" after their segment. Let this be a warning to you... Always treat a camera as if it is on and recording.

I'm not going to fight the choice of emphasis by Microsoft in their overall pitch. Most of their UC products are perfectly suited for the kind of one-on-one communications they presented. But I can't help thinking that they are diminishing the power and value of Live Meeting by presenting it as an alternative to an ad-hoc conference call. There are now so many collaborative conferencing products on the market at low-cost or no-cost prices that Microsoft is going to have a hard time building a value justification for their solution with that positioning.

For me, Live Meeting gets its value from being one of the smaller set of conferencing products that are designed to serve the needs of large, structured events produced by high end enterprise customers. It should compete squarely against WebEx Event Center, Adobe Acrobat Connect Professional, Raindance Seminar Edition, and the like. If Live Meeting backs itself into competing against Yugma, Persony, and other quick 'n cheap solutions, it is doomed.

A full-featured webinar event solution includes features for registration, attendee management, reporting, automated invitations and reminders, viewer customization, feedback controls, integrated recording, audio options, polling and surveys, and more. It is useful for lead generation, public demonstrations, training, and outbound communications. Live Meeting is up to the challenge. I hope Microsoft realizes the strength and differentiation factors that matter for a standalone webinar product and hit the right notes when Live Meeting 2007 hits the street. Because if they continue to promote it the way I saw in the Unified Communications overview, they should strip it down and give it away for free with the purchase of the other items in the suite.

ON24 or GoToWebinar?

Is a pear better than an apple?

They are both fruits, they both can satisfy a hunger pang, They both contain small seeds clustered around an inedible core. They both have peels that are edible (although some people prefer to remove them). They both grow on trees. Which is better?

It's awfully hard to answer that question, isn't it? Now what if I asked which one would be more useful in producing a pulpy sauce-like side dish to have with my pork chops? Suddenly I have a specific use case and my experience tells me which fruit is more applicable.

The preceding analogy was spurred by a question I received from Bob. He read my article asking "Is Good Web Conferencing Available?" and noticed that I didn't mention ON24 in the short list of vendors I covered. So he emailed me the following note:

Ken, how would you compare ON24 to Citrix GoToWebinar in terms of ease of use and user (participant) experience? Price-wise there is no comparison - Citrix is the clear winner based on their $1k annual flat fee. Would seem to be a no-brainer to use Citrix over ON24. What am I missing?

What you're missing, Bob, is a comparison criteria other than price. If that's your only decision factor, then yes... GoToWebinar is preferrable. But you also mentioned that you are interested in ease of use and the user experience. That opens up a large set of feature comparisons, some of which boil down to personal preferences and some of which are based on your needs.

Each product excels at different things. GoToMeeting/GoToWebinar stands head and shoulders above every other screen sharing technology I have used as a presenter or seen as a participant. It is the only one that has the display speed to show something like a full screen transition wipe from one slide to the next. When you are showing a full screen web page or Word document and use the thumb slider to smoothly scroll down a bit, the audience sees the document scroll as well. They don't see some blocky redraws of half the screen, or an instantaneous jump to the new position.

But ON24 comes into its own when you are webcasting a speaker narrating a slide presentation and you want to show a video of the presenter along with the slides. The audience can see the live video of the speaker and can view the slides alongside. ON24 is one of the many web conferencing vendors that lets you upload slides to a central meeting repository space. As each participant logs in to the meeting, the slides start caching for rapid display on their machine. The presenter can see a list of all the slides in his or her presentation in a preview "thumbnail" display and can see what is coming up as a memory jog. S/he can also jump directly to any slide in the presentation at any time. That is impossible with the Citrix product, since the audience sees what you see as a presenter. The "yes, but" rejoinder to the slide-showing question is that ON24 converts slides to static images when it uploads them. So GoToWebinar wins the battle if slide animations and transitions are important for you.

I like the fact that in GoToWebinar the audience can shrink the web conferencing controls all the way off the screen so they are concentrating only on your content display. But some people prefer to have a clearly defined viewing console framing their content, as ON24 provides. This can help set off and highlight your content from other applications your audience might be running (such as their never-ending solitaire game).

Other feature implementations seem equivalent at first glance, but have interesting differences that may please you and your audience more in one product than the other. As a presenter, I find GoToWebinar's typed in Q&A handling to be more difficult to work with. It is harder to see long question text and your answers. And GoToWebinar consolidates multiple questions from a participant into a long unbroken stream of text in the post-event report. It can be difficult to separate one question from another. But that might not worry you, as the participant-side experience is just fine with both technologies.

Another huge difference in the user experience is the availability of computer audio. GoToWebinar requires your partcipants to dial in over a telephone conference to hear your seminar audio. ON24 gives you the option of webcasting the audio stream to your participants' computer speakers. Many participants prefer having the choice of how to hear the seminar.

If we go back to ease of use for the event organizers, recording an event is another area where the products differ quite a bit. Because ON24 incorporates a digital audio stream with the visuals, it can record the entire integrated audio/video presentation via software. GoToWebinar requires the use of a hardware bridge between your telephone and your computer to integrate the sound and visuals. That makes another item you have to buy, install, and configure for use.

There are plenty of other differences, but I'm getting too long-winded already. I also have an uncomfortable feeling that I have just opened myself up to a string of "Product A vs. Product B" comparison requests. I don't really want to turn this blog into a comparative shootout site.

In the end, selecting a web conferencing vendor is an exercise in forethought, requirements definition, and testing. Think about what kinds of content you will want to show and what performance features are the most important to you. Who will participate in your seminars, and what (if anything) you can project about their technical configurations. Demand the ability to test the software as an event organizer and presenter and see how your key requirements are handled.

I have had clients who are quite happy with each of the technologies you mentioned, and I wouldn't cut either one out of consideration when looking for a new conferencing technology provider. But the one I would suggest for you would be highly dependent on the specifics of your use case.

Wanted: Multilingual Registration

Webinar technology vendors... read this to the end. You have a chance to get free publicity and recognition!

Web seminars are an incredibly powerful tool for reaching a global audience. Your participants can watch from anywhere in the world without having to spend time and money to travel to a physical meeting place. As an organizer, you can create registration pages that collect vital information on who registered and attended your seminar. These might represent new sales leads or they might indicate existing customers with an interest in a new offering. Perhaps you are tracking employees who have taken a mandatory training class online. Maybe your presentation is a prerequisite for a live telephone discussion so you know all your committee members have seen the salient facts before working collaboratively to reach a conclusion.

Whatever the case, the ability to collect and analyze a list of registrants and attendees is vital. Most webinar technology vendors offer the ability to create registration pages (some offer more customization flexibility than others) and to download reports pulled from the registration information. But I have been running up against problems with international attendees lately.

Consider someone from Poland attending your event. Their alphabet (and keyboard)contains characters not found in the standard ASCII codes used for Western English.

Polishalphabet

If they enter their name with one of the non-English characters, it is likely to show up on your registration report as an empty rectangle or some other character conversion that leaves you scratching your head over who they are, what their address is, or what their company name is.

It gets worse if you are trying to reach Asian audiences. Many Asian language representations on computers use what is known as a "double byte" architecture. That means a character needs two bytes of digital coding in order to represent it, instead of a single byte, as is common with Western alphabets. Japanese and Chinese have even more confusion, as there are different representation schemes even within their own language representations.

A standard was created for consistent representation of different languages on computer systems. It is called Unicode and can handle around 100,000 different characters taken from all the major languages of trade and commerce. Great! Something we can all use. Unfortunately, Unicode is inefficient, as it uses a lot more storage space for each character's coding. And the "universal standard" has been broken down into many subsets, which kills the whole point of it, if you ask me.

So now we come to the crux of the matter. Which (if any) webinar technology vendors support Unicode or some other way to get registration reports that faithfully reproduce characters entered from non-Latin keyboards. Can you show me the Japanese name of my attendee? Can you give me the street address that my Korean participant typed in?

Send in a comment or email and I will update this post to give you the recognition you deserve. I figured WebEx would be able to handle my request, as the global market leader in web conferencing, but it turns out they can't do it. So this is your chance to trumpet your feature superiority to WebEx!

UPDATE (Oct 15):

ON24 is the first vendor to speak up. Cece Salomon-Lee (Marketing Communications Manager) writes me that "our platform can take the non-standard characters and display them correctly in the reports. This assumes that the person viewing the report has the correct fonts installed on their computer. In other words, you have to have the correct fonts installed on your computer in order to see the characters. If so, then our presentation manager program will also display the correct characters."

UPDATE (Nov 8):

WebEx now says they can properly capture foreign characters in registration information. You need to segment and save the report rows from each different character set as a comma delimited text file and import the file into Excel indicating the source character set. Excel will interpret the codes correctly and display the characters in their original format.

Insight24 Adds A Syndication Channel

Insight24 promised to be more than a single-site storage and search solution when it launched. As I found out the hard way with my attempt at event search, it is very difficult to get people to start coming to a new content search website based on the format of the target material rather than its content. iTunes and YouTube are the ventures that have made it work spectacularly well for mp3 files and live video files. Currently Insight24 is duking it out with EventSpan and Finervista to try for dominance as the preferred search utility for recorded webinars/webcasts.

Today Insight24 announced a partnership with PC World, where clients who pay for placement and promotion services with Insight24 may see their webcasts featured as resources on PC World's Business Center website. I spoke to Tom Masotto, the vice president of business development at ON24, about the implementation specifics.

Tom said that the PC World site concentrates primarily on content of interest to Small/Medium Businesses (SMBs), while ON24 features a wider target -- going all the way up to the largest enterprises. The Business Center also segregates content according to its own seven major topic divisions that don't map directly to Insight24's keywords. Therefore the syndicated content will be hand picked for appropriateness in each category to make sure it matches the interests of a visitor to the PCWorld sub-page.

Although complete cosmetic details have not been finalized, it is likely that the syndicated webcasts will appear as text links, rather than the fancy thumbnails that Insight24 uses on its own site. When a viewer clicks on a webcast, they are presented with a standardized registration page to collect their personal data. The information is passed to PC World and to the original provider of the webcast. Insight24 also adds the person to an internal list to receive newsletters and promotional information. Of course everything has opt-out options, as required by American anti-spam legislation.

This should be a triple-win situation for all involved. PC World gets more content so they can be seen as a one-stop shop for informative and valuable material of interest to its readers. They can increase traffic and sell more advertising. Consumers are able to find materials based on topic-related searches in a generic framework, rather than having to go to specialized sites to find the information. And Insight24 gets to sell more placement and promotion services to content creators.

 

ReadyTalk Adds New Features

A formal announcement and general availability of new features in ReadyTalk's web conferencing software won't be out until later this month, but I got a chance to preview some upgrades to the software. Mike McKinnon, their Social Media Director, took me through a sneak peek at the enhancements. None of these is earthshaking, and it doesn't constitute a major new release of the software, but they are nice additions to the platform and show a healthy dedication to ongoing R&D and improvement.

ReadyTalk uses an online administration page to set up events and manage details. It received a face lift, with a nicer layout and better grouping of common functions.

When creating event invitations, ReadyTalk uses a template approach that lets you fill in key fields such as date and time. Mike told me that clients sometimes make a change to an existing event (such as moving it to a new date or changing something in the description), which would force them to create a new invitation from scratch... filling in all the fields again. Now you can work from an existing invitation, changing only the fields that need updating, and use the revised version with your event. It should save time for many webinar administrators.

For some time, ReadyTalk has been offering the ability to save an event recording as a podcast. You can save just the audio stream, or the combined audio/video. Of course, a single event podcast is really nothing more than a standalone media file. The more common implementation of podcasting has been to create a feed that people can subscribe to, getting new recordings as they are published.

To make life easier for companies that produce podcast feeds, ReadyTalk now allows single-button publishing to a subscription page. Interested "consumers" of your information can go to the page and click to add your feed to any of several popular feed readers. From then on, any new podcast you create is automatically pushed out to your subscriber base.

I saw the value of the functionality, but wished for even more flexibility with the ability to establish multiple feeds. A large company might use their account to create one set of podcasts for employees and another set for customers (perhaps a feed for each product line). Currently the software allows for only one subscription feed. Oh well... Maybe in a future release!

The final addition to the product in this go-round is an online recording editor. I'm trying to think of web conferencing vendors that make their own recording editors available and all I can think of is WebEx, so this functionality is rare (and welcomed).

Operation of the editor is designed to be very basic and easy to use. It runs entirely in a browser, so administrators on any operating system can make use of the utility without downloads and installs.

You basically see a recording playback viewer with a standard time bar and timecode indicator (I described that poorly... The concept is something like this, although this is NOT a screenshot of ReadyTalk's editor):

Timebar

While watching and listening to your recording, you make note of the timecodes at the beginning and end of segments you want to remove. Enter them in the appropriate fields and - SNIP! - the offending section is gone.

Although you can make several cuts in one operation, I would recommend doing each one separately to take advantage of the best feature of the utility. Every cut is stored as its own edit, and you can undo any cut to restore that portion of the recording. Unlike most UNDO operations, these don't have to be cycled through in order from most recent back to the one of interest. You can make eight cuts in a recording and then go back and decide to restore the material you cut out in number 3.

Because the processed version and the original are always available, this is valuable for compliance issues where you might have to prove that you aren't trying to hide something that was said in a live public broadcast.

Cutting out time segments is the most basic operation that people use when editing their recordings. This can get rid of things like instructions and standby messages that were given to the live audience, or time spent waiting for audience interactions that would be boring to a viewer of the recording.

Mike readily admitted that the utility is not meant for advanced editing that might need fine control down to the sub-second (timecodes can only be entered as whole seconds) or for operations such as copying segments or adjusting video and audio separately. I do a lot of those kinds of edits for my clients, and I need an array of specialized software to take care of all the nuances that crop up. But for basic cleanup before publishing a recording, this is a great production aid.

I expect all of these features to be available for customers some time around October 22 or so. But as a former software manager, I won't put money on an exact release date!

My Photo

Visit Webinar Success

  • Webinar Success

Free webinar!

Webinar News

  • Check the latest industry news

Subscribe to The Webinar Blog

  •  Subscribe in a reader



    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add The Webinar Blog to Newsburst from CNET News.com



    Add to Google

    Subscribe in Bloglines

    Subscribe in Rojo

    If you would like updated blog entries emailed directly to your inbox, you can add your address to an automatic distribution list.



Other Bloggers

Statistics