Outdated corporate video: what dates it, and what can be saved

A three-year-old corporate video almost never dates because of the picture. It dates through three things: the plant it shows, the people in it, and the claims it makes. Before you remake an outdated corporate video, check which of those three are still true. An expired claim can often be fixed in the edit. A plant that has changed, or a spokesperson who has left, calls for a new shoot. And a video that is still accurate and still doing its job needs nothing, even if it feels old to you.

The test comes down to one question. Would a buyer who visited your plant next week recognise what the video showed him. If yes, the problem is somewhere else. If no, the video is working against you, every time someone plays it.

What actually dates a company film

The plant

Take, as an illustration, a manufacturer in the Beauce region that has added a robotic cell, moved its assembly line and expanded its warehouse. Its video still shows the old floor. To a buyer, that is not a cosmetic detail. It is understated capacity, or worse, a picture that no longer matches what he will see on an audit. The more specific the places a video shows, the faster it ages. That is especially true of a virtual factory tour video, whose whole value lies in being accurate.

The people

Another scenario: the operations director who introduced the company has left for a competitor. The technician who explained quality control has retired. As long as a person only appears in passing, it hardly matters. When that person speaks for the company, their presence creates two problems. A client who knows them knows they are gone. And the question of their agreement to keep appearing comes up. That second question is one to settle with your own counsel, and it is covered in employee image rights.

The claims

A headcount, a floor area, a certification, a list of markets, a product name since replaced. These are the elements that age fastest, and the ones a technical buyer checks. Think about implied claims too: the logo of a client who is no longer one, a trade show banner from a past edition. A false claim, even one that became false in good faith, costs more credibility than a slightly dated picture.

What dates least, on the other hand, is style. Sober framing and an honest interview age well. What ages badly is whatever effect was fashionable the year it was shot.

A video does not age with the years. It ages with the gap between what it shows and what a buyer finds when he arrives.

What can be recut without reshooting

Many videos written off as outdated can be saved in the edit, on one condition: you still have the material and the right to use it.

• A claim written on screen or spoken in voice-over can be removed or replaced.
• A shot of an area that has changed can be cut, if other shots can take its place.
• An interview that is still accurate can yield new short clips and vertical formats the original version never had.
• A video too long for its current use can become two short pieces.

All of this assumes you have access to the raw files, or that the original studio agrees to recut. That is often where the project stops, because nobody settled the question in writing. It is covered in who owns the raw video footage. Check what your licence covers as well, including the music licence, before you publish a new version.

What cannot be recut: a claim spoken on camera by the person who carries the film, a plant that no longer exists in that form, a departed spokesperson who is the thread of the whole video. There, cutting is not enough, because nothing is left around the cut.

When you have to reshoot

Reshoot when the core of the video is wrong: the place, the person speaking, or the offer itself. A subcontractor that has moved from contract machining to full assembly no longer sells the same thing. Its video can be technically flawless and still describe a company that no longer exists.

If you do reshoot, use it to head off the next problem. Ask for a film built so that one segment can be replaced without redoing everything. Interviews are cut by theme, plant footage stays separate from what people say, and figures go on screen as text rather than in someone's mouth. And settle the files and the licence in writing before the shoot, not after.

Another way to settle it is never to let the material age all at once. In the Signal Program, a full shooting day comes back every 3 months, with a lifetime content licence. The material renews piece by piece, and no single piece has time to become the one frozen portrait of the company.

When it is better to leave it alone

An old video is not an outdated video. If everything it shows is still true, if the people are still there, and if it still does its job where it plays, remaking it is money spent for no effect. A buyer does not hold it against a video that it is three years old. He holds it against a video that is wrong.

The same goes for a client testimonial. As long as the client is still a client and still stands behind what they said, the testimonial keeps its value. It may even gain some, because it proves a relationship that lasts.

Finally, if the video produced nothing before, remaking it will not fix that. A video with no destination and no distribution stays without effect, new or not. In that case, the question to settle is where it plays and in front of whom, long before the question of a shoot. The full approach is on the video and content production page.