There’s almost unanimous agreement from those companies that use video for the internal audience that there is no easy or one-size-fits-all approach. Like much of internal communications, successful campaigns and projects require understanding who the audience is and how they want to receive messaging.

Video is swiftly rising in the estimation of many internal communicators. However, most agree that video is just one part of the comms mix.

At a breakfast with 14 in-house internal communications professionals from FTSE-listed and large public organisations, one attendee said, “Some people love watching video. Some things work on video. And some people prefer to read something, and that’s the best way they can absorb the information. So it’s very important that video is another comms channel, it’s not a comms tool. But, you’re pushing the communications out by more than one channel, so, people can absorb it in the way they want to absorb it.”

Mike Merit, VP of customer success at enterprise video solutions platform Kontiki, says, “Video within the enterprise is seeing explosive growth. Our customers alone saw an 100% increase in live video usage in the past year. While these numbers are impressive, it shouldn’t be surprising given the similar growth with consumer video. Digital video has become a daily part of our lives because it is such an engaging medium. It’s natural for employees to expect the same experience within the enterprise.”

In our survey of 135 internal communications professionals the two most common uses of video were for employee engagement (89.5%) and the engagement of remote employees (61.05%), allowing for multiple answers to the question. And yet, use varies from training to leader-led communications to the sharing of important information about the company itself.

Another attendee said, “I think that relates to the point that it is all about the context that it’s being used in. What’s the purpose of the video? Who’s going to be watching it? Where are they going to be watching it? Something that you’re watching at a conference with 100 other people might feel great. But watching it on your phone on the train on your own won’t be a very good experience. Is it delivering the ROI? What are you trying to achieve from the video? Is it to get information? Is it engaging them? Is it training? I mean if it’s a substitute for face-to-face interaction, then you can see why people would prefer that.”

Past those hurdles, video can yield phenomenal results. One company documents its successes with employee-generated content that garners conversation from employees facing similar challenges in a complex industry. A widespread workforce can be both an obstacle and a boon for video communications. In the first case, it’s difficult to work with the differing capabilities of technology across the world yet, employees can also create valuable content for their colleagues in different places.

“Employees only care about the things that are going to help them do their job better. And if the content isn’t helping them do their job better, then they switch off”

In dealing with technology and the costs associated with it are a variety of solutions for making video affordable and effective. Some have given employees inexpensive equipment, allowing them to create and edit content and share it with their colleagues. Others opt for existing platforms, like YouTube, rather than building their own internally. Some produce apps – including three of the attendees at the seminar last month – specifically for internal comms use. The debate is unresolved, however regarding the best type of technology and best platform for distribution. Most say something along the lines of, “You have to reach people where they want to be reached.”

Platforms like Kontiki, an efficient aggregator designed to host corporate video offer a compelling solution. Unlike Sharepoint, Kontiki’s platform is designed to address the unique requirements of video; extensive storage, massive bandwidth and the ever changing video formats. Merit, says, “Video in Sharepoint can work at a small scale, but as video usage grows companies quickly find out that SharePoint isn’t really designed to handle video at scale”

Some companies, like those with employees who work on transport links – like the Tube or trains – or have a widespread workforce have found mobile comms a valuable means of reaching employees. One of the biggest challenges internal communicators face, however, is getting people to watch the content they produce, and to watch past a certain cut-off point – be that 45, 60 or 90 seconds. People tend to watch short videos outside of work – a habit encouraged by the snack-like nature of vines and Instagram videos – yet corporate videos are often lengthy and of a different style than those which arise on social media.

One IC professional said IC must take into account the way people consume content online, “Outside of work, you want everything quick, you want everything right in front of your face, you want it sorted. But when you sit in the office you want to sit in front of a video for twenty minutes of your CEO talking about the share price? That’s not going to happen.”

Slowly but surely are companies beginning to recognise this. Animation has become a popular style of corporate video and many companies are breaking with the traditional ‘floating head’ videos in favour of more interesting content. One person, however, cautions against video for the sake of video. It should be used when other communications outlets do not suit the message. “Employees only care about the things that are going to help them do their job better. And if the content isn’t helping them do their job better, then they switch off.”

Most communicators surveyed point to leadership-driven messages as the most effective to be shown on video. Video can help communicate the CEO’s character while discussing complex or sensitive topics such as rebrands, lay-offs or important messages relevant. Videos may be one of the few opportunities for a CEO to express his or her personality in a non-written format to the entire organisation at once.

One respondent writes, “Video has been used effectively to break difficult news from leadership. Allows them to convey emotion and empathy more effectively than any other means,” a sentiment shared by many. Another writes, “Our half yearly update from our CEO – you can see and hear his passion for our business and his pride in our people. Capturing him on video (with local language subtitles) lets people see him in action and is better than reading an email or magazine foreword.”

It’s nearly unanimous that video is a valuable tool for employee engagement. Of the 135 survey respondents, only six said they don’t use video at all and 105 reported its use for employee engagement.

Though 35% of respondents say video content is pushed out from the leadership team, responsibility for videos is as yet undecided. The majority of companies place the responsibility for video in the hands of the comms team (90%). Yet, centralised units for video – like HSBC Now’s internal television news programme – allow for greater editorial independence.

One person notes that his organisation features a strong affinity between employees and their jobs, but little connection to the corporate brand. Thus, videos about that organisation and its leaders have little emotional impact and can even do damage to overall internal comms efforts. It’s important, therefore, for communicators to determine who has credibility with employees and how much involvement leaders should have in video production.

Many note that videos of CEOs can make corporate leaders more personable. One respondent writes, “Our CEO can’t visit all of our sites (650) but he an explain his vision to all staff through video. It really brings our work to life.” For government bodies or companies with strong leadership control over communications, video, when used correctly, can be a way to reach unengaged employees. One communicator from a department within the MoJ says video is one of the more creative options available.

Business leaders, however, want to ensure that any piece of communications – particularly a  potentially expensive video – yields a positive return. Measuring a video’s success has become easier, but cost still remains an issue. One person said, “It’s about the return on investment for us. It’s, how much do I need to put into this? versus what is the perceived and measurable [response]? And every time I look at that, I can’t make it work versus other channels that I can invest in.”

Yet, many warn of the overuse of video when face-to-face or more personalised communications would be best – when undergoing sensitive changes to the business or for training of specific units, for example. One even said, “We’ve stopped using video with people who are not naturally good on camera – it’s hard work and the output is never good.”

Confidential information is not ideal content for video, however, as it can be easily distributed outside secure channels. Almost all respondents say video should not be used to communicate about change. One person writes, “Big change projects are hard because you need to tailor local context. Can only work well if you have someone (leader) there in person to outline, ‘This is how it affects us,’ plus answer queries. You always need two-way opportunities for communication, so every video showing should have ability for employees to ask questions.”

Video can be beneficial to internal communications efforts. That much is indicated by the plethora of companies that have already begun to integrate video into their comms mix. Managing it effectively and implementing it in a way suitable to both the message itself and the leaders’ policies can remain a bit of a tightrope walk. Yet those companies that are able to manage that balance will find themselves with a more efficient, informed workforce.