Category Archives: Communicating with a Diverse Audience

Can Scientists Be Taught to Talk and Act Like Normal People?

Posted on by

Dr. Caruthers is a scientist who studies large river deltas AND wants to share her science with policy-makers and the general public, BUT does not know how to craft her message so that it is understood and appreciated by non-specialists; THEREFORE, she decides to attend a workshop designed to help her learn how to create and deliver an engaging story about her field of study.

The question is, can Dr. Caruthers unlearn years of training and become a more engaging communicator? She has been taught a certain way of explaining science, which works if she is speaking to colleagues. However, scientists and science educators must frequently explain their work to non-specialists (students, policy-makers, the media, the general public) who don’t necessarily appreciate a “just the facts” approach.

Of course, Dr. Caruthers does not exist, and that is a fictional narrative I created using the

Randy Olson and Brian Palermo at LSU workshop

Randy Olson and Brian Palermo

ABT (AND, BUT, THEREFORE) template, which is part of a storytelling system developed by Randy Olson and his colleagues, Brian Palermo and Dorie Barton. For three days, professors, staff, and students at Louisiana State University and Southern University heard presentations and attended “Master Classes”, led by Olson and Palermo on the LSU campus. The goal of their workshops is to help scientists, educators, students, and others tell better science stories. They’ve written a book (Connection: Hollywood Storytelling Meets Critical Thinking) in which they lay out their formula for creating more compelling science messages. They’ve also created an app called “Connection Storymaker”, which I’ve described previously, that provides an electronic template to guide the user through the steps involved in structuring a good story.

I attended the two hour seminar held on February 7 and then one of the “Master Classes” on February 9 (thanks to Gene T. for letting me register late). I’ll describe these and give my impressions below. But first, an introduction to “storytelling”.

Storytelling: What It Is and Isn’t

When scientists hear the term, storytelling, they often think that it means fabrication, exaggeration, or “tweaking” the facts to tell a better story. However, that is a very narrow interpretation. Storytelling is simply a description of events using words, images, or other means for the purpose of entertainment, education, or teaching morals. It might involve a fictional account, but not necessarily. I think the fear that scientists have is that storytelling involves cherry-picking of facts and data to tell a skewed story. However, our scientific papers are actually formatted to tell a story: This is my hypothesis (Introduction); this is how I tested it (Methods); this is what I found (Results); this is what I think it means (Discussion); and this is how it fits into the bigger picture (Conclusions). This traditional story formula is one that scientists expect and understand. However, this structure won’t work well for non-scientific audiences. And that’s where storytelling comes in.

Because of the poor connotations associated with storytelling, Olson and others now suggest the use of the term, “narrative”. I’ll have more to say about this in another post. For now, it is sufficient to understand that storytelling or narrative is a means of conveying science information in a way that is interesting, appealing, and memorable to most humans.

The Seminar

The seminar was a joint presentation by Randy Olson and Brian Palermo. Olson is a former marine biologist who left academia to become a filmmaker and author. Palermo is an improvisational actor and instructor in Hollywood. They talked a bit about their storytelling collaboration and then covered some of the basics of storytelling described in their book. The central message of the presentation was that scientists and others can learn to use narrative structure to develop more effective ways to communicate science, especially to broad audiences. Olson described the concept of using a simple narrative structure to engage even those totally disinterested in a scientific topic. Palermo elaborated on the importance of how the message is delivered and described how improvisational exercises can help scientists appear less “cerebral” and be more approachable and likable. Their presentation was punctuated with some interactive audience exercises, which served as a preview of what would be done in the smaller workshops.

Before and after the seminar, I talked to a few people and asked them why they came. Several said they had never heard of the speakers and did not really know what to expect; they came because they were curious. Others said they had heard Olson speak previously and wanted to hear more. A few, like me, were already on board with the idea that scientists need better communication skills and were there to learn and participate. I was particularly curious about how an academic audience would react to the idea of storytelling and how easily the workshop participants could learn to use storytelling techniques.

randyolson_lsuseminar_klmckee

Randy Olson seminar at LSU

My impression was that the audience found the seminar interesting and informative. Most seemed to be open-minded and receptive to the ideas presented. However, all were perhaps not clear on whether or how the information might relate to them. I know some have misgivings about the whole storytelling concept (apparently a common reaction among scientists and academicians) or are not interested at all in broader science communication. And they also may have some concerns, as I do, about when and how to use storytelling techniques with different audiences, e.g., general public versus scientists.

Both Olson and Palermo were generous with their time and continued talking with participants during a post-seminar mixer and over dinner that evening.

The Master Classes-ABT Exercise

Three Master classes were held over the weekend following the seminar. These sessions were divided into two parts, each led by Olson and Palermo. The first part focused mainly on how to use the ABT approach to develop a narrative. Each of the participants had been instructed to bring an example that they had developed using the ABT template. What this exercise confirmed for me was that most scientists and science students have no clue how to craft a compelling narrative. Most of the people in my workshop came with narratives that were too cerebral and jargony and not very compelling, despite having used the ABT template.

Let me hasten to add that that’s exactly how I would have written a narrative about my science before I got involved in science communication. We get so focused on our specialties and are so familiar with the information that we cannot see that others may find it incomprehensible. As Olson pointed out to the group, scientists have blinders on. During the exercise, he had the participants read their narratives out loud and then tried to help them focus in on the compelling story hidden within all the scientific mumbo-jumbo. Only one person successfully came up with a compelling narrative on his own (he reworked his after hearing some of the discussion). For everyone else, it was going to take more thought and work.

From my perspective, I could see what needed to be changed in others’ narratives to make them more appealing and understandable. However, I know that I would have difficulty seeing my own narrative with such clarity. I’m simply too close to it. It also struck me during this exercise that it really takes someone else (preferably totally unfamiliar with your topic) to hear your narrative and help you see it from another perspective. When people were asked questions about their narrative or for specific details, a much better story emerged. That was a big eye-opener for me—that many scientists need to solicit (and pay attention to) feedback when developing their narratives. Just plugging their words into a formula is not necessarily going to produce a good story—at least not right off.

However, I’m afraid that scientists will resist this type of input, especially from non-scientists (we are all such know-it-alls, especially when it comes to our own work). But we need to have the blinders ripped off. We need to realize that when it comes to communication, we are not necessarily the experts. That does not mean that we should accept without question a new way of doing things—just that we should keep an open mind and consider other approaches. We especially need to get input from our target audience to help guide our narratives.

Although I find the storytelling approach useful, I also think there are some subtleties to using such techniques in conveying science information that have not been fully explored. Communication with non-specialists, especially the general public, definitely requires some type of narrative approach. For professional audiences, however, one must be a bit more circumspect. I think it’s possible to give a scientific presentation and use a narrative structure to capture and hold the audience’s interest. Putting the research into a historical perspective is one example. However, there will be people who will be highly critical of any scientific presentation that deviates from the traditional format. For an established scientist, such an approach might be tolerated, or even seen as creative. For a student or junior scientist, however, telling a story may be a riskier move if seen as a sign of inexperience or manipulation. Another issue is trying to tell a complex story in simple terms (as Olson explains in this post, Beware the Simple Storyteller). I may explore these aspects in future posts.

In summary, the workshop gave people a chance to try out the narrative approach, but it will take practice to use it effectively and appropriately.

The Master Classes-Improv Exercises

The second part of the workshop was led by Brian Palermo, who is a dynamic teacher and motivator. He took us through some basic improvisational exercises that thankfully were not too embarrassing. For example, we were asked to pair up and display an emotion that we were assigned (confident, knowledgeable) using only body language to see if our partners could guess it. The idea was to illustrate that how we think we are being perceived by others may be totally wrong (we may think we look confident, when others interpret our body language as arrogant or creepy).

Other exercises also were designed to get us “out of our heads”. I enjoyed doing these exercises, and most of the other participants seemed to also. They were meant to give us a taste of what it’s like to be spontaneous (a foreign concept to many scientists).

Improv can help you:

1. listen better (and connect with people)

2. become more aware of what signals your body language is sending (I’m confident speaking to a large audience vs. I’m an arrogant know-it-all)

3. shift our perspectives (from inside our heads to our audience’s)

4. reconnect with our emotions and more naturally display them (for example, showing enthusiasm for our work)

5. think on our feet (might come in handy during oral exams or during Q&A at a conference presentation)

6. react quickly to deal with the unexpected (like when the bulb on the projector burns out during your job interview seminar)

7. learn how to use humor effectively (note, however, that this is not a suggestion to tell a silly joke or turn your conference talk into a stand-up routine)

8. quiet your mental critic, allowing you to be more relaxed and less self conscious (very helpful for those with stage fright)

9. appear to be a normal human being (if you tend to talk and act like Mr. Spock on Star Trek)

I could go on, but you get the idea. Being an introvert, I find such exercises challenging but helpful. If you suffer from social anxiety and especially stage fright, improv might be one way to overcome it. One estimate puts fear of public speaking at 40% of the American population in 2001, just behind fear of snakes at 51%. I’ll have more to say about such fears (especially fear of the camera and how to overcome it) in upcoming blog posts.

Well, if you are still reading (I did not intend to go on so long), I’ll sum up by saying that scientists and science educators can benefit from understanding narrative structure and how to use it to convey a more engaging science message. The system developed by Olson and colleagues is simple and straightforward because it distills what is actually a complicated process down to an easy-to-remember formula. However, simple does not mean that it is easy to apply. If you have the opportunity to take one of these workshops, it will give you an introduction to these methods. However, for most of us, successful implementation will take a lot of practice.

Science Field Courses That Emphasize Videography

Posted on by

The video opens with a scene of a rainforest followed by footage of spiders and the aquatic ecologist who studies them. Christopher Holmes, a graduate student at the University of Illinois, explains that spiders are a lot like us, “They need to eat, build a house, and survive and reproduce.” He then uses the analogy of a human fisherman to explain spider ecology in greater detail.

Some students take field science courses as part of their training. Such courses often require students to conduct an independent research project and then write a report and/or give a presentation at the end of the course. With the advent of digital media, some of these courses are now encouraging or requiring students to create a video, a course blog, and/or a course podcast as part of a growing emphasis by educational organizations to teach communication skills to students.

Naturally, I think this is an excellent idea.

In the next video, Ralph Saporito, a Tropical Biologist, and Nick Batoro, Ph.D. candidate, describe some of the trials and tribulations that researchers and students encounter when doing fieldwork:

The above videos were co-sponsored by the Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS), which offers a variety of field courses and study abroad opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students. Students taking Introduction to Tropical Biology (Winter 2014) created, with the assistance of Day’s Edge Productions, several excellent videos about their topic of interest and posted them on YouTube. You can go to the course website to watch all of them. Thanks to Andrés Santana, Graduate Education Department, OTS, for permission to embed two of the videos here.

OTS also offers a field course for science teachers, during which they design their own research project and produce their own videos to “bring their personal experiences in the rainforest to life for their students”.

Field courses like these are great opportunities for science students and educators to be exposed to videography and science communication. I’m pleased to see that organizations like OTS are taking the initiative to teach media skills along with learning about tropical ecosystems. I helped teach an OTS course in Panama many years ago, long before I took up videography. I can now think of many ways that video could have enhanced that course…from filming some of the organisms and their behavior…to producing student videos about their experiences.

If you are teaching a field course or any course with field trips or laboratory exercises, you might consider having students create a video as a course assignment (or as an alternative to a written report). They can easily accomplish this with a digital camera (that shoots video), an iPad, or a Smartphone.

 

Coming Soon to a Journal Near You: Video Abstracts

Posted on by

[note that this is an updated version of an article I wrote for another blog]

pointatcomputer copyA relatively new trend at some science journals is the publication of video abstracts alongside the written article—in which the authors explain their findings on camera. Video abstracts are typically short (3-5 minutes) and often are freely accessible, either on the journal’s website or on a video-sharing site.

What are the advantages for an author? By using video, authors can explain their work in a way that they are not able to do in print, such as showing footage of their experimental methods, field sites, and/or study organisms. The authors are able to provide a more personal explanation of their findings and put their work into a broader perspective. By posting a video on the internet, an author can raise the visibility of their research because search engines rank video high in comparison with text-only descriptions (especially if it’s the only video out there on the topic). People searching for information on a topic will be more likely to find their video abstract, and the video will lead viewers to the technical paper. The more people who are aware of the work, the more likely they are to cite it. Also, if the video is published on YouTube, the authors are free to embed their video abstract on their own websites, something they often cannot do with their journal publication because of copyright restrictions.

Another important point, often overlooked by authors, is that they can reach a broader audience with a video abstract. For example, a video abstract may reach end-users such as resource managers or health-care workers who might not read the technical paper but would watch a five-minute video. Colleagues in other fields might also find your video interesting even though they would not read your paper. For example, as a scientist, I’m interested in keeping up with major discoveries in other fields. Although I’m not likely to read a technical paper about the Higgs boson, I would watch a video that explains what’s been discovered and what it means. In other words, a video abstract can greatly expand your audience beyond fellow scientists who read your journal articles.

A video abstract that explains your work in everyday language also can be used to show the “broader impacts” of your work, for example, in a grant proposal to a government funding agency such as NSF or NIH. NSF, for example, requires proposers to show both the technical merit as well as the broader impact of the proposed activity on society. Videos that are accessible and understandable by a diverse audience meet the second criterion and serve as documentation of a scientist’s previous contributions in this regard.

What are the advantages for the reader? Video can provide a richer, more interactive experience for a reader. Anyone can access such media without having a subscription or paying a fee—unlike the journal article locked behind a paywall. For non-specialist readers, a video in which the authors explain their work in everyday language would provide greater insight, spark their curiosity about the topic, and possibly encourage them to learn more about it.

What if my journal does not publish video abstracts? Not that many journals support publication of video abstracts. However, this should not stop you from creating and publishing a video abstract on your own. The benefits, as outlined above, should be sufficiently motivating to justify the effort. You can publish your video abstracts on your own website on on a video-sharing site such as YouTube. In fact, because millions of people are searching YouTube for information, your video abstract will be more visible than if hidden on a less frequently visited website.

What will the future hold? Video abstracts are part of an overall trend in multimedia communication of information on the internet, which has been facilitated by the wide availability of digital devices and software for creating and sharing videos. Some science disciplines seem to be getting on the video abstract bandwagon faster than others. Whatever the future of video abstracts, we are clearly in a learning phase. Many of my colleagues have either never heard of video abstracts or expressed little interest in doing one, even if offered the opportunity. Students seem to be more receptive to the idea, possibly because they are more technically-savy and accustomed to watching YouTube videos than their professors.

If video abstracts become standard practice, authors will need to develop some skills at creating such videos (or have someone else do it for them (most likely for a fee)). At a minimum, scientists must understand how to design an effective video abstract. Unfortunately, there are few guidelines for authors who do want to create a video abstract.

To help, I’ve put together a short guide to creating an effective video abstract. It covers eight basic steps involved in planning and creating a video abstract and has links to other resources, including a tutorial showing how to make a video abstract with a smartphone and a simple movie-editing application. Feel free to download the pdf and share with colleagues and students:

Download (PDF, 1.25MB)

16 Mistakes to Avoid When Making Your First Science Video

Posted on by

karen_bookshelfPicture this scenario: A scientist is nearing the end of a research project funded by NSF and is preparing the required summary report written for the public. She decides to create a short video to submit along with her written report. She’s never made a video before—only shot occasional footage with her iPhone. Undaunted, she buys an expensive camcorder and after a bit of practice in her backyard, dives into shooting. She films herself explaining the project in detail from behind her office desk. She goes through all the methods, results, and statistics, making sure to cover all the uncertainties and limitations of the research. She doesn’t bother to edit the footage, not really knowing how to do this. In any case, the clips she shot in her backyard garden look nice and add a bit of scenery to the video. The final video is 29 minutes long. Proudly, she shows it to her lab group, most of whom worked on the research project. At the end of the viewing, there is stunned silence. Then, one graduate student tentatively raises his hand and asks, “You’re not going to put this on YouTube, are you?”

Uh oh.

Novices typically make the same mistakes when they first attempt to create a video. I know because I’ve made quite a few of them myself. I see the same glaring blunders made over and over again in what are clearly first-time videos made by a scientist or science educator. However, many of these errors are easily avoided. Some simply require awareness to side-step them, while others take a bit of practice and/or the right equipment.

I came up with a list of 16 common mistakes (and how to avoid them) based on my own experience. I either made the mistake myself at some point or would have had I not been forewarned about it. I’m sharing them with you in the hopes that they will help you avoid some of the most common errors:

1. Ignore your audience. The number one mistake that you can make is to fail to identify your target audience or fail to keep them in mind when designing your video. I find that scientists too often explain their work as they would to their colleagues, even if their audience is composed of non-specialists with little or no background in the field. It never occurs to them to put themselves into their audience’s shoes.

Solution: During all phases of video production, ask yourself the following questions. Will it make sense to my viewers? Will they find it memorable, interesting, informative, and/or enjoyable? Find more information on how to keep your audience engaged here: Keep Your Audience in Mind and Are Your Science Videos Understandable by a Diverse Audience?.

2. Have no plan. Novices rush out with their cameras and just start shooting. The result? A long-winded, rambling monologue and/or poorly composed footage, which often has no bearing on the topic of the video.

Solution: Prepare a script and storyboard your shots beforehand. Write out what you want to say and also describe or sketch out the sequence of shots (storyboard) you plan to use. Don’t memorize the script, however—just use it to organize your main points and to ensure a smooth delivery. Follow your storyboard to set up your shots and also to guide you in editing.

3. Don’t tell a story. A common mistake that scientists make in a video is to string together a series of facts designed to “educate” the viewer. These facts are presented in a logical and unemotional manner—which is how we are trained to convey science information. Unfortunately, viewers, especially the general public or students, may not react well to this approach. In addition, they may not remember material presented this way.

Solution: Frame your science message in the form of a story. People love stories and will stick around to see how everything turns out. They also tend to remember stories better than bare facts. Explaining science in the form of a story also helps you, the science communicator, make a connection with the audience. A good story asks and answers a dramatic question: What motivates a scientist to study deadly viruses? How does a volcanologist collect (and carry) samples of molten lava? Why should I care about climate change? By using a story, the videographer can present science information accurately and concisely but in a way that engages the viewer.

For more information on the use of dramatic questions and storytelling in science videos, read The Dramatic Question and I’m Not Interesting, But My Research Is.

4. Use bad camera moves. Inexperienced videographers often shoot with hand-held cameras, which produces shaky or blurry footage (and no, it’s not the same as the jerky footage sometimes used by professional filmmakers). Another common mistake is sweeping the camera around erratically (“firehosing”). These problems happen when the videographer has no idea what they want to shoot (in other words, they have not planned anything and are just filming everything in the hopes of getting something useful).

Solution: Carefully plan and set up each shot and use a tripod to steady the camera.

5. Overuse zooming/panning. The controls on many modern cameras encourage novices to overuse the zoom feature, which can be annoying to viewers and also adds unnecessarily to the video length. Too much panning (swinging the camera from side to side across a scene) is also a sign of inexperience.

Solution: Zoom with your feet. Instead of using the camera to zoom in for a close-up, stop and walk closer to your subject and resume shooting. The time spent during a zoom is wasted time and does not add anything of value to your video. Use zoom and pan sparingly and only when you have a specific reason for it.

6. Backlight your subject. Another common error made during filming is to position the subject in front of a light source such as a window, which causes backlighting. The camera automatically selects the brightest light as reference and adjusts everything else accordingly. The result is to put your subject in deep shadow. Backlighting can occur outdoors as well when the sun is positioned behind the subject or is overhead, casting shadows onto the subject’s face.

Solution: Ensure that the light source is behind the camera; if necessary, use extra lamps or reflectors to light your subject. This post and video explain more about backlighting: How to Deal with Lighting Issues.

7. Fail to compose your shots properly. Many novice videographers/photographers put their subject in the center of the frame, which is less interesting to the eye.

Solution: Use the “rule of thirds” to compose shots. Most cameras have an option to show a grid in the viewfinder that divides the frame into thirds from top to bottom and left to right. Use this guide to frame your shots. Read more about this composition tip in this post: The Rule of Thirds.

8. Shoot too wide. Novice videographers (and photographers) often shoot too wide, putting their subject far from the camera lens. The result is often a poorly-composed shot in which details of the scene, the subject, or the action are difficult to see.

Solution: Wide shots are fine if you are trying to show something in perspective—otherwise position the camera close enough to your subject to capture the action and/or details, such as facial expressions. If they are gesturing or demonstrating something, then periodically use a medium shot or possibly a close-up of their hands (and whatever they are holding).

9. Tell but don’t show. Those new to video often rely on verbal descriptions and fail to show what is being described. This approach reveals a lack of imagination and is boring to the viewer.

Solution: Let visuals tell your story. Use text and verbal descriptions to augment the visual depictions—not the other way around. You are making a video, after all. For more information, read Show and Tell and What Is B-roll and Why Should I Care About It?

10. Drag it out.  Some videos seem to drag because the scenery never changes, or the story does not move forward at a good pace.

Solution: Use a variety of footage (or still images) shot in different locations or from different perspectives (close-up, medium shot, wide shot). By changing scenery or perspectives, you add visual interest and move the story forward. For more information, read Keep it Moving.

11. Feature “talking heads”. The novice videographer films long sequences of people speaking to the camera—an approach that is guaranteed to bore viewers. This effect is enhanced when the talking head is a scientist speaking in a robotic manner.

Solution: Use cutaways to other footage, images, animations, or graphics to illustrate what the speaker is describing. By giving the eye something new to look at while the speaker is explaining, you add visual interest and avoid boredom.

12. Don’t worry about the audio. Novice videographers fail to use proper microphones and often don’t pay attention to ambient noises (people talking nearby, dishes clattering, machinery droning, traffic rumbling, wind blowing) during filming.

Solution: Use a lavalier-mic (lapel microphone) to ensure a speaker’s voice is clearly heard. Also use a good quality microphone for voice overs (not the built-in computer microphone). When shooting, review often and listen to the sound with headphones or earbuds. For more information, see How to Improve the Audio of Your Videos Without Breaking the Bank.

13. Have speakers introduce themselves. Having a subject introduce themselves on camera sounds awkward and also wastes time: “Hi, I’m Dr. Hotshot, and I work on a very important subject.”

Solution: Identify people with a simple text caption that appears briefly while the speaker is talking about their topic. The person is clearly identified without adding to the length of the video.

14. Go crazy with special effects. Movie-editing applications often include a library of special video and audio effects. Novices get carried away and use dramatic transitions between clips or glowing text that zooms in and out of the frame. Overuse of fancy effects in an attempt to spruce up otherwise boring footage will fool no one—and will likely annoy the viewer.

Solution: Stick to basic transitions (cut, dissolve) and simple (and consistent) text styles. Use special effects sparingly and only if you have a specific reason to do so.

15. Make it longer than necessary. Scientists making their first video will try to cram as much information as possible into it. They also feel the need to explain every detail and uncertainty (in the interest of accuracy). By the time they finish all that hemming and hawing, the viewer has clicked away to another video.

Solution: Strip your video down to a core message and include only those elements necessary to get that message across. If you can deliver your message in three minutes, then don’t go any longer by trying to cram in more “facts”. For more on the topic, read Strive for Brevity and Can You Describe a Scientific Method in a One-Minute Video?

16. Use copyrighted material without permission. Novices often are unclear about what can and cannot be used in a video. Instead of creating original material, they download images, video, and music from the Internet to create their videos. Unfortunately, they may be guilty of copyright infringement.

Solution: Assume anything on the Internet (or fixed in any other medium) is copyright protected until evidence to the contrary is found. Just because you can download it, does not mean you are justified in using it. The best solution is to use media that you’ve created or media in the public domain. Otherwise, you need to obtain written permission and/or pay a fee to the copyright holder. For more information, see Sources of Public Domain Images.

Well, that’s my list of common mistakes to avoid when making your first science video. This is not an exhaustive list—just the ones that I found to be most problematic for me, a scientist. Some of these are no-brainers, but others you may find difficult to avoid even if you know better.

Want to learn more? I go into greater detail about these and other pitfalls to avoid in my book, The Scientist Videographer. Check it out.

How to Make a Book Trailer: Part Four

Posted on by

We are talking about how to create a media trailer for a book, which is designed to attract potential readers. In the previous posts, I described my own experience creating a trailer for my recent book, The Scientist Videographer. I explained that you need to study other book trailers (step one), identify the central message you wish to convey and elements from your book to include in the trailer (step two), and visualize and acquire the media to use in your trailer (step three).

In this post, I describe the fourth and final step, which is to compile your material and produce the trailer with a movie-editing application. You may be thinking at this point that movie editing is too technically challenging. To create my book trailer, I used the desktop version of iMovie and built the trailer from scratch. However, I will show you a really easy way to create a book trailer using iMovie for mobile devices. This application has an option for creating movie trailers, but it can be modified to make a book trailer. iMovie has templates and instructions that make it super easy to combine your video, still images, and text to produce a professional-looking trailer. iMovie does most of the work; all you have to do is drop your media into placeholders and then render the video. I used my iPad for the demonstration, but you can use an iPhone to shoot and edit your book trailer.

As you will see, I walk you through the iMovie 2013 app (for iOS) and show you how to create a book trailer. (be sure to select the HD version and full-screen for best viewing):

As you saw, the iMovie app is easy to navigate, and the movie-trailer templates provide a structure to guide you. You should be able to find one to fit your book type. If you don’t like any of the trailer templates, you can still use the basic movie editor in iMovie 2013 to create a book trailer from scratch, as I did. In fact, with this app, you can create several trailers for your book, each emphasizing a different aspect of the book or targeting different readerships. If you are working on a series of books, it would be easy to produce multiple trailers to advertise each one. There are a lot of possibilities once you learn the basics of movie editing.

If you want to learn more about planning, shooting, editing, and sharing videos to promote your work, check out my book, The Scientist Videographer (it’s not just for scientists).