It is almost a given now that an online educational offering will have some element of video.
And generally it follows this process. The creative brief gets approved, a crew is booked, a few days are locked in the studio, and the most credible academic or SME is prepped to deliver a polished script. Then there’s weeks of post-production to bring it all together.
It’s a significant investment, and it usually comes from a good place. Everyone involved genuinely believes it’s going to lift the quality of the program.
What’s often missing, though, is a conversation earlier on about whether video is actually the right format for what’s trying to be achieved. Not just in terms of production, but in terms of learning. What does the learner need to do with this content? How often is it likely to change? What happens when it needs to be updated in twelve or eighteen months?
Production quality absolutely has its place. But it doesn’t automatically equal good learning design, and it shouldn’t be the starting point by default.
The production cost is the number everyone sees because it’s the line item that gets approved and tracked. However, the more important cost is what happens after the shoot.
When high-production video becomes the default format, you’re not just making a one-off investment. You’re locking yourself into a format that is much harder to update over time.
Consider in vocational and higher education how content changes. Qualifications get updated, industries shift, policies move, and in many cases the business environment itself is constantly evolving. If core teaching content is embedded in highly produced video, every meaningful change will become very costly.
So, we see outdated videos remaining in the course longer than they should because replacing them is expensive and time-consuming. Teams work around them, patch them, or ignore the issue altogether because the effort to fix it feels too high.
This is why the question of what goes into video is so important.
Video is incredibly powerful when it is used to bring something to life. Lived experience, real examples, expert insight, or frameworks that underpin the entire unit are all strong uses of the medium. These are the elements that benefit from presence, tone and context.
Where it becomes problematic is when video is used to deliver basic knowledge or content that is likely to change. That kind of material is much better suited to formats that can be updated quickly and without friction.
So the real design decision isn’t whether to use video or not. It’s about being deliberate with where you use it, so that the investment remains valuable over time rather than becoming a constraint.
We have seen time and time again that more video does not necessarily lead to better learning. Most teams working in digital programs understand this at some level, yet it still shows up repeatedly in how content is developed.
The issue is not the use of video itself, but how it is being used. In many cases, video becomes a repository for information rather than a deliberately designed teaching tool. Long explanations delivered to camera or recorded lectures are often included with the expectation that clarity of delivery will translate into learning. In reality, video in isolation remains a largely passive medium, and the responsibility falls back on the learner to determine what is important and how it applies.
What ultimately determines whether video supports learning is how it is positioned within the broader experience. If it is not connected to an activity, reflection, or discussion, it tends to function as content rather than as part of a learning process. Simply adding more video does not change that dynamic.
Where video does add value is when it is used with intent. It can be highly effective in bringing concepts to life through lived experience, in illustrating real-world application, or in introducing frameworks that underpin a unit. In these cases, the medium contributes something that text alone cannot easily replicate.
The key design decision, therefore, is not how much video to include, but where it is most appropriate to use it. Without that clarity, it is easy to invest heavily in content that looks engaging but does not materially improve learning outcomes.
When a program's credibility rests on one person's face and voice on screen, and that person leaves the organisation, the program has a problem. The teaching that seemed embedded turns out to have been contingent. And the rebuild costs roughly what the original production did: new scripts, new shoots, new editing.
A more sustainable approach uses expert involvement where it genuinely adds value. Targeted interviews that bring authentic voice to real complexity. Short, specific introductions to case study material. Practitioner commentary that could only come from someone with that person's experience. These formats are typically faster to produce, more engaging to watch, and significantly easier to update or replace.
And they don't require the expert to be a performer.
NOTE: if you are interested in what it was like to move from teacher to ‘on camera’ educator check out this video by our CEO Bianca Raby: Teachers on camera: Since when was this in our Job Description?
For organisations operating in regulated environments across Australia and New Zealand, accessibility is not a check at the end of production. It is a design requirement from the start.
A process that treats captions, audio descriptions, and keyboard-navigable media as post-production items creates two problems: rework when those elements are added retrospectively, and compliance exposure when they're identified as absent during an audit. WCAG 2.2 and TEQSA's Higher Education Standards Framework (Standard 3.3) set clear expectations [4][5]. Building to those expectations from the scripting stage is simpler and less costly than retrofitting after the fact.
When accessibility is designed in from the beginning, it often improves the media strategy in practical ways — leaner scripts, cleaner content structure, less reliance on visual-only communication that serves some learners and excludes others.
If you're planning a media-heavy program, or reviewing a media strategy that already exists, the most useful work tends to happen before any production decisions are made.
Who owns this content in twelve months, and how often is the subject matter likely to change? What level of production is appropriate for this audience, this context, and this content's expected shelf life? Is video the right format for this outcome, or is it the format the team defaults to because it's familiar?
These are learning design questions. They're not always comfortable to raise — especially after a brief has been approved and a budget has been signed off. But they're the questions that determine whether the investment holds up over time, or whether it becomes the thing the team is fixing two years from now.
Oppida's approach to Rich Media Production starts with understanding what the media needs to do — where it sits within the learning experience, what format serves that purpose, and what it will cost to maintain as the program evolves.
For programs in development, that means establishing a media strategy before production decisions are made. For programs where production is already underway, it means reviewing what's been built against the outcomes it's intended to support.
If that conversation would be useful for your program, reach out to start it.
[4] TEQSA (2021). Higher Education Standards Framework. Standard 3.3. Link
[5] W3C (2024). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. Link
Not by itself. Production quality supports learning outcomes only when it serves a clear pedagogical purpose. High-fidelity media that is not designed around how learners process and apply information does not reliably improve understanding or capability. Research in pedagogical design consistently shows that structure, sequencing, and active application are stronger predictors of learning effectiveness than visual or audio polish.
Why is high-production eLearning video expensive to maintain?High-production video is expensive to update. Scripted, studio-recorded, and professionally edited, it requires a full re-shoot for every substantive content change. In fields where legislation, software, or research evolves regularly, this creates a pattern where outdated media stays on the platform because replacement costs are prohibitive.
What is the difference between curation and creation in eLearning media?Curation involves identifying high-quality existing resources — peer-reviewed content, published case studies, recorded practitioner interviews — and integrating them into the learning experience at the right point. Creation involves producing original media. A well-designed media strategy uses creation only where the specific institutional context, audience, or subject matter requires it, and curates everything else.
What accessibility requirements apply to eLearning video in Australia?Organisations operating under TEQSA's Higher Education Standards Framework (Standard 3.3) are required to ensure digital resources are accessible. For video, this includes captions for all audio content, audio descriptions where visual information is essential to understanding, and keyboard-navigable media players. WCAG 2.2 Level AA compliance is the current accepted standard and must be built in from the scripting stage, not added retrospectively.
How should learning designers decide when to use video versus other content formats?The primary question is whether video is the right format for the specific learning outcome. Video is most effective when it needs to demonstrate a physical process, provide authentic workplace context, humanise complex theory, or deliver content that no written or static format can replicate. Where no such need exists, other formats are often more cost-effective and easier to maintain.