Video for Change and Impact

Overview

February 2, 2016

About this Conversation

  • Language: English
  • Featured Speakers: Sam Gregory (WITNESS), Jessica Mayberry (Video Volunteers), Sarah Kerr (WITNESS), Andrew Lowenthal (EngageMedia), Soledad Muniz (InsightShare), Cheekay Cinco (EngageMedia), Tanya Notley (Western Sydney University), Lina Srivastava (Regarding Humanity), Daniel Moretti (ITVS)
Media , Technology

The use of video as a tool for creating social change is determined by the impact that video can have on individuals. Understanding the intended and unintended consequences of video is important for advocacy efforts. Knowing the positives and negatives is critical to implementation in successful social change.

In this conversation, participants discussed how to create impact. They evaluated how organizations can measure, track, and evaluate the impact of their video for change efforts. Conversation leaders explored the stages at which impact can occur. Identifying the stages of research, training, production, filming, and screening. They discussed how to design appropriate strategies given desired impacts.

Defining Video for Change and Impact

Video advocacy is one of the most effective tactics that used in change-inspiring movements. The reason for this is the extended reach that films can have. They are also able to appeal to emotion better than a published article or any other method of information dissemination. What exactly are videos for change?

Participants defined Video for Change as the use of video as an approach to support social movements. This includes documenting rights violations, raising awareness, sharing knowledge on issues and others. What is significant about this particular definition is that videos for change are an approach. They used to support social movements or to contribute to social change.

How to Use Video in Advocacy

Like any tactic, videos are often “deployed as a tool or an asset” within a movement, rather than as stand-alone products. By thinking of videos as having a “place within a larger impact ecosystem” it eases the pressure to do too much. Allowing the video to play a specific role and leaving other tactics to their respective roles. This is true for any social movement where “complex processes of social change make it almost impossible to be able to fully attribute change to one single tool or process”. Being able to separate the role of videos within a larger web of social-change efforts is important. This is especially true when we begin to monitor and evaluate the impact that it has.

Video advocacy can have longer term success but more often it serves a short-term purpose. Hence it’s supporting role within larger activism efforts. Films can be particularly successful in sparking interest or a desire to act from its audience. Films in today’s multi-media heavy setting often have a short shelf life. They can be the hottest topic one day and fade from conversation the next. So its important to think realistically when constructing a video for change and predicting impact. Thinking about goals can be useful in ensuring positive impacts when distributing the video.

Impact of Videos for Change

Each of the above-mentioned aspects of Videos for Change is relevant when understanding the impact or impacts that they can have. Defining impact presents more of its own challenges. Impact can involve weighing up a set of priorities and setting specific objectives. However, impact can also be outside of the realm of expectations. There can be unforeseen impacts, and failed goals. In sum, impact is how a video – the production of it, the video itself, and the distribution of the video – affects everyone involved in it. One conversation leader said that the simplest synonym for impact is “change.”

Different Models of Impact

There are different ways to make impact. Models of Impact vary from organization to organization, and across regions. Additionally, Models are constantly being created and adapted based on a particular movement’s needs. Because “impact” can translate to something very different from film to film, one type of impact is not always better than others. There are, however, a couple of important differences between impact types. Including target audiences and the significance of the production process itself.

The Impact for the Audience

One approach is to engage specific audiences around particular objectives. They believe that this will make the video the most effective. Another perspective recognizes that there is not always a defined affected group for advocacy media to engage. But, even without a clear audience, it is still important to think through potential impacts for different groups of actors. Contemplating the need for a target audience or not is important in designing a model of impact for a particular video project.

The Impact of the Process

The audience is not the sole area of impact. Much like there are a variety of tactics that enact change, there are also many ways that films can create change. One conversation participant noted that the creation and distribution of video itself is a social process. Those involved in the production process are experiencing impact. They might share that impact with their community. These impacts can be independent from the intended impact on viewers that comes from distribution. The video, and its impact, are more than the reactions of viewers. When you work with an identifiable group, you approach impact with the agendas and assumptions of those involved in the project.

According to one conversation participant, the social nature of the video creation is what creates much of the later impact. They believe that the engagement of people affected by the issue at hand in production and/or distribution is important. A defining feature, rather than an add-on. In this model of impact, the community and stakeholders are the first source of impact and the general audience second. In another model, the wider, external audiences have the largest potential for impact.

A Participation-Focused Model of Impact

An example of a participation-focused model of impact is that of Video Volunteers. They work with a large number of “Community Correspondents” (CC) who view a video for change. The CCs then track the impacts that they have in their community. When a CC identifies an impact, they are first asked questions about it for documentation purposes. The questioning also serves as practice for the next phase. There they are given the opportunity to make their own impact video and be compensated three times as much for it. This model of impact encourages activism and builds local capacities for creating impact. However it requires many resources. People create and monitor impact in many ways and as stated before, one size does not fit all.

Evaluating & Assessing Impact

Measuring impact is the most difficult aspect of video advocacy, yet it is very important. By asking what is being measuring and why, objectives are better outlined and prioritized. This makes the film more pointed and intentional, and effective in its impact. This is not always possible though.

In some cases, impact can be measured by the achievement of a specific goal. For example, if the goal of an impact video was to get a local road fixed, the measurement of that impact is clear – the road is fixed or not. However, evaluating the entire impact of even this simple example is more complex. Who exactly did the video reach? What conversations did it spark? Will it help fix other communities’ roads? Will it spark debate about the effectiveness of government?

Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches

So, evaluating impact can be both quantitative and qualitative, and to varying degrees. In many media spaces, success and impact are often judged through quantitative measures. Metrics like numbers, distribution, views, people reached, etc… However, impact is not always created because of the size of audience but their relevance to an issue. An example of this is whether you are working to impact a small local community or to influence a group of decision-makers.

Again, videos for change can be so effective because of their unique ability to appeal to emotion. But if the information shared in a film is irrelevant to a community, they may not be an effective source of impact. So, aside from the numbers themselves, qualitative measurements seek to understand how poeple use the video. Measuring who is using it on the distribution side, and what skills collaborators learned in the process on the production side.

Quantitative and qualitative measurements have different uses. They depend on what filmmakers are seeking to do with their video project. Another factor to consider is that impact changes over time. So depending on when the assessment is, the visible and measurable impacts of the video project can change or evolve. This goes back to how films often spark action and not always as long-term advocacy efforts.

Specific Examples of Measuring Impact

The Video for Change approach measures impact at many points of the process. Like planning and research, consultation, pre-production, shooting, editing, outreach and engagement, evaluation, etc… It then divides impact into the areas affected by the video:

  • “Impact on the Discussion” – Creating attention in your or external communities.
  • “Impact on Our Power” – Building movements and creating individual and collective power.
  • “Impact on Our Learning” – Building capacities and learning
  • “Impact on the Real World” – Changing policies, structures and practices.
  • “Impact on the Real World” – Changing individual or collective minds and behaviors.

WITNESS lists many indicators of impact and then monitors them through a bi-monthly reporting system. Every six months, they reflect on desired outcomes and their qualitative successes to evaluate if they are on track to meet their goals.

“The Participant Index” helps measure the social impact of entertainment on its audience. They consider different criteria or impact points such as:

  • Information Seeking
  • Information Sharing
  • Taking Individual Action,
  • Encouraging Community Action

Next, they then measure how emotionally affected audiences are by films. They do so based off their theory that the greater the emotional involvement someone has to the story, the more likely they are to move to social action.

The Fourth Act’s HARVIS Tool is a mobile web app that allows entire audiences to provide feedback instantly.

Augustus Boal of Brazilian Forum Theatre uses a unique method of audience interaction. In it, scenes often stop and the audience comments on what the next action of an actor should be. They then rewind the play a little bit, or even step on stage and act out the ‘change’ they would like to see. Audience members are “Spectactors” because of their participation in the performance.

Other Examples Shared

Films

Organizations

  • Active Voice Lab
  • Augustus Boal – Brazil’s Forum Theatre
  • BritDoc
  • Regarding Humanity
  • Video for Change (V4C)
  • WITNESS

Resources

Related Archives