At Bump, we often suggest people-centric videos for EU advocacy campaigns and drumbeat content.

But why do we do this? And why don’t we say a full-bellied YES to requests for animated explainers?

It comes down to four things:

1. People-centric videos make strategic sense.

People and relationships run this town and move the needle. By centring your message around you and your team, you’re putting a face to the narrative – which is far more memorable, personable and engaging than a wordy position paper turned into an animated explainer. Simply put: People want to hear from people.

2. Our clients and the third parties often involved to validate a message are BUSY people.

We know that if we only have 30 minutes (sometimes even just 15 minutes if we’ve had a pre-chat) with someone, we can make a solid video. We’ve trained for years on making those minutes count – interview skills, getting people comfortable and in the zone skills, etc.

3. We can (often) turn the video around within a couple days.

And on LinkedIn, the traction is immediate. This process means you’re more likely to be seen by the right people and your messages are more likely to be remembered as a result.

4. There simply is no other tactic that offers this level of ROI.

As someone from the year 2015 might say: That’s it, that’s the tweet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Now, animated explainers can certainly have their places and use cases, but there are a few things to keep in mind before taking that route:

1. It can be a huge time commitment.

The typical development cycle is usually 6-8 weeks, compared to a full video campaign which can be created in 2 weeks or less and be built and released on a rolling basis.

2. There are so many more decisions to make.

Which animation style or voiceover should you use? How many script revisions do you need (v23 anyone)? These decisions can slow down the process without necessarily adding any value. In fact, an explainer script can quickly mirror the overly inclusive exercise of position paper writing: tonnes of comments that add bulk instead of simplicity.

3. High quality animation is expensive.

Unless a client is working with a well-priced unicorn that can talk strategy, write copy, animate and voice act – you should be prepared to spend at least €15-20K on a quality explainer video. And that is a lot to spend on one single product – and spending it inflates expectations on how it will perform, which are typically not met.

4. It creates more work for you.

If you do decide to take on an explainer video project and need to manage budget limitations, we would definitely suggest that you (as an experienced communicator) take on the bulk of the strategy, scripting, basic storyboarding work, VO identification and management yourself – and then hire the right specialist animator to do the rest.

While there are plenty of use cases for creating an animated explainer video, people-centric video content just makes sense in so many contexts. So the next time you’re putting together a content strategy, keep the points above in mind – the last thing you want is a giant, expensive headache from an explainer video project just because no one in your organisation wanted to speak in front of a camera.

Want to read our 10 tips for great interview videos? Of course you do 😊