The inaugural Internal Communications and Engagement Awards are taking place in London on 13 May. Big Button has been shortlisted at the awards

An impressive array of super-sophisticated video kit can be found in most offices, warehouses and work vehicles around the world – usually it’s a smartphone – but often it can be something a little more ambitious like a tripod, external microphone or even a small drone. But does that mean we should all be commissioning our employees to shoot and edit their own films across the business? 

I’ve recently worked on several projects that have captured employee-generated content (EGC) around the world. As part of one project, we ran a pilot to test the agreed approach, and I went along to facilitate the capture of pieces to camera using an iPhone. The plan was that, with a bit of coaching, the employees would have the skills and confidence to film themselves.

In reality it didn’t quite work like that, and in fact the process gave us a really useful insight into UGC and EGC in general. What I found was that, with the best will in the world, some people just aren’t comfortable filming themselves. For some, shooting a selfie is second nature. For others, it’s hell. So at best, you may be forcing people to do something with which they’re uncomfortable, and at worst you might immediately be excluding part of your workforce with this approach – which may mean the same people appearing in all of your content.

It’s also worth remembering that shooting usable video and sound isn’t as easy as is often thought, and audiences do have a minimum standard they expect – even with UGC. Crucially, those filming themselves won’t always have the same understanding of what’s required to tell a good story. Comscore shows that professionally produced video outperforms user-generated video by 30%, delivering a 24.7% lift, as compared with an 18.7% lift for UGC video.

If you ask most people why they think UGC is a good approach, there are usually two answers: cost and authenticity. Although cost is always a consideration, it shouldn’t be the only reason you choose the approach; cheap but ineffective is expensive. Executing good UGC isn’t always cheap anyway, as it takes time to find the right people to take part, their time is worth money and the content can be tricky to sort through and edit. Authenticity is the most valid reason to choose UGC in my opinion. But what if you could offer the same authenticity with a professional edge? Surely that would be the best of both worlds?

With all this in mind, the compromise we reached on this project was a hybrid approach combining expertly supported and edited UGC, and professionally shot footage – with new technology allowing interviewees to talk directly to camera in a completely natural and genuine way. It worked really well, and none of the available participants were excluded or traumatised. In fact, the film in question has been nominated for an award at the inaugural Communicate magazine Internal Communications and Engagement Awards.

Having said all of this, I really believe EGC has its place. Sometimes it just isn’t practical to have a film crew with you every step of the way or in all your locations across the globe, and the very best content filmed by employees can be magical.

But at the same time, with careful thought and planning, involving a professional crew doesn’t need to mean you lose the authentic feel of UGC or EGC. If you do choose to produce EGC, do it for the right reasons, not just because it’s cheap.

Simon Crofts is the client services director at Big Button

To book your tickets for the awards, click here