You’ll all be well aware of the popular use of animation to cover anything from MoDs and MoAs to drug administration, MedTech gadget overviews, and all the rest. But what if I pointed out that so many of these explainer videos miss the mark on one rather fundamental aspect of their reason-for-being?
A lot of them don’t actually do any explaining at all. They do a lot of showing, which is something very different – even though it doesn’t sound it. And it’s such an easy trap to fall into.
So, I thought I’d lay out the difference to help you get your next video up to scratch from day one. And yes, I’ll be sure to explain rather than just show … I’d never live it down otherwise.
No explain: no gain
Before we get too deep, let’s be clear: I’m not being pedantic about dictionary definitions. In everyday use, “show” and “explain” are interchangeable and nobody minds. What I’m getting at is the assumption that showing how something works (which usually makes perfect sense to the person showing) does the job of creating understanding in someone brand new to the subject.
A personal analogy: My golf coach keeps showing me how he makes great contact with the ball. Lovely to watch, great for him. But what I actually need is the explanation why! Why does my swing differ from his? What part of it am I doing wrong? Why does that have the effect of sending my own shots flying wildly left and right, leading to the endangerment of other players and the occasional trespassing mallard?
And the answer he gave rings true for golf as well as explainer videos: It’s all in the ‘sequencing’!
You see, showing conveys a given state. Explaining conveys the cause and effect – the all-important sequence. This happens, which does this to that, which is why the next thing follows. This brings the viewer along with the ‘storyteller’ as opposed to trying to figure out the in between links themselves. The pieces go from falling into place on-screen, to falling into place in their minds. So that person can then convey the information in their own words later in the day, rather than having to rely on remembering it verbatim due to lack of real understanding.
It’s the classic ‘But & Therefore Rule’ developed by Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park fame: never use ‘and then’, use ‘therefore’. ‘And then’ is disjointed language, ‘therefore’ is cause-and-effect language.
Without the clear ‘cause and effect’, a video can be perfectly scientifically accurate, beautifully produced and gorgeously art-directed, but still be confusing as heck.
At LOVELIVE, everything’s done in a timely manner
To help you get from merely showing to properly explaining, as healthcare-focused motion designers, we see things differently: we think in seconds, not slides. Or sequences … just to keep the terms the same.
We often get given a complex PPT, full of static slides of dense scientific information. And mixed in with all the illustrations of cells, molecules, biological processes, etc, etc. are arrows to show movement, duplicated assets to show before-and-after states, labels and bullet points for ‘narration’, Step 1 and Step 2 labels to convey affect over time – all designed to show something in a static snapshot that, in reality, plays out over time.
But this is where many slip-up when making a video version: simply making the exact same graphics fade in and out on the screen is a tragic waste of an opportunity. Things need to be thought about in a temporal manner – as, ironically, many of the explanatory elements in the static diagram need to be cut for the video version.
This sequencing is an editorial decision that decides not only what needs to be shown, but when it gets shown. It’s the single biggest thing that separates a video that explains from a video that shows. And this is exactly where we can help, as we approach each motion project with a ‘story first; graphics second’ mentality.
It’s the way we tell it…
So how much causal detail does any given video need? The tempting answer is to grade it by audience expertise: keep it simple for lay viewers, go deep for the specialists.
I’d suggest a more useful question: what does the viewer need to do with the understanding afterwards?
Someone who needs to make a decision needs enough of the causal chain to weigh it against alternatives. Someone who needs to defend a decision to a committee needs more, because they’ll be asked “but why?” and they have to be able to answer without you in the room. Someone who needs to use something correctly needs the steps and the consequences of getting them wrong, and rather less of the molecular biology.
There’s little point in bombarding a patient with PHD-level MoAs – too complicated, too confusing, and quite likely: panic-inducing. Nor the opposite be true: being too ‘top-level’ for the top brains can have an equally undesirable result.
Trying to do both at once? Yeah … nah!
This is a balancing act best done before pen hits paper, at script development. Boiled down its ‘simplification’, which has to be the misnomer of the year, because deciding what your audience genuinely needs, and having the nerve to leave out the rest, is some of the hardest editorial work there is. It’s also work we love, so bring us in early and we’ll do it with you.
Making sense with all your senses, is just … sensible.
People consume information differently. Some are very visual. Some prefer to listen. Others prefer to read. Great explainer videos seamlessly blend all three, so everyone benefits.
It’s unfortunately far too common to have a VO deliver certain information, only for the visuals to attempt to add additional chapter-and-verse into the mix at the same time. A viewer just gets pulled all over the place (I mean, who can effectively listen AND read at the same time?). You just end up with dissonance. And don’t talk to me about throwing subtitles into the mix too!
When voice and visuals are built to support and reinforce each other, something great happens: the understanding starts compounding. The whole becomes more than the sum of its parts, engagement goes up, and more knowledge actually transfers.
It’s choreography in every sense of the word. If that makes, erm, sense?
So, did I explain, or did I just show?
Well, are you able to turn to someone and explain the subtle yet important difference? I hope so, otherwise this has been a calamitous waste of everyone’s time. Please do accept my apologies.
Whichever way it is, just remember that ‘showing’ is usually just a graphic design exercise, whereas ‘explaining’ is an editorial one. And the best motion designers do both at once – but often they are brought in too late in the process to have the most impact.
Most people come to us with a deck and a deadline. The conversation we’d rather have starts a step earlier, at the planning stage, where the explaining actually needs developing. So, bring us into the room before a single letter of script has been typed, and allow us to help in the process far, far sooner.
In the long run, it really will save everyone a lot of time.
So, give us a call … you know it makes sense!
