Especially manufacturing firms need to showcase their product, its benefits, features, and uses. As product video marketing attracts more customers and it is an effective means to engage the prospect. With e-commerce websites and online payment getaways, many production firms started selling their product online.
And to take advantage of it, it is necessary that companies have product animation videos. So they can display it online. 3D animated videos have a huge impact on customers than live shoot videos.

Let’s see a few types of Product videos

–       Product demo video

–       Product teaser video

–       Product overview videos

–       Product launch video

As discussed earlier Product video for marketing is must to have. Before buying product customer likes to know it’s features and benefits rather than still image a video is more engaging as it gives a clear idea about it’s look and feel.

Why have product Animation?

As the name suggests this video has a special goal to explain companies’ product. Let’s talk about service provider companies they don’t have any product to showcase however, their services can be explained in this video.

Companies like Microsoft have product videos for every service they provide right from document management services to the CRM platform.

When it comes to manufactures product demo videos or animated product videos are a basic need for marketing. Animated video shows 360-degree product views. So the client can see an overall look and feel of the product. Its product is complex exploded view of the product makes it easy to understand.  In the 3D animated video, we can show a cut section of the product so the client can get assured of the quality of your product. At atellier we create photo-realistic 3D animated product videos.

Companies like Apple are creating product animation videos and using it as an advertisement as well.

At atellier we create animated product video or product demo video for our clients across the globe.  We have expertise in creating 2D or 3D animated product videos.

Shall we opt for product video or screencast Video?

A screencast is typically a real-time recording of an individual’s actions as they browse the Web or works on a computer. Most of the time, a screencast is dry and un-engaging for viewers. Hence it cannot be a solution or alternative for animated product videos. However, screencast provides great assistance for current customers.

Industrial product animation.

Industrial products are always complex to explain with brochures. Our client is a manufacturer of oil engines wanted to showcase their product in a different way. An objective of a video was It should be engaging and it should show its internal working. While showing product engineering of the product was supposed to be a highlight. That was exactly we did in this project.

Berg & Schmidt

Berg & Schmidt is an International brand present more than 50 countries. They are leading brand in the manufacturing of poultry products and animal nutrient supplements. They wanted to make product videos. Their customers were right from poultry owners to a farmer so we need to make sure we target both the sections that are B2B and B2C. And decided to create a single video with multiple languages as India we have lot many regional languages and especially farmers do prefer that. Right from writing script to final output everything was done in-house.

Exploded View

An exploded view is a must when it comes to showing inner engineering of the product. Before starting working on this product promotion video we had a limit for video length and another task is to highlight internal engineering as the entire highlighting point would be the quality of a product.

With 15-sec product promo we nailed the customer’s needs.

Electronic Product

When you are selling the product online your product video should look realistic so customers can get a look and feel of the product. While working on this project quality of the video was really important and we achieved photorealistic visualization for this project.

Garda Fertilizer

Garda fertilizers are Mumbai based Fertilization Company and they wanted a product video for their fertilizers. In this project, we delivered an explainer video with product demo.

Consumers and Online Video

 Does your consumer trust in online videos? Let’s see what experts have to say.

The online video stats show that they love it. Hubspot’s research shows that 45% of people watch an hour or more of video per day.

 Google adds that 40% of millennials trust YouTube for content, and 60% say videos they’ve watched have changed their perception.

Nowadays before buying a product everyone like to check it’s review and videos that how end consumer will use it?

So why to weight call us today to know free quotation for your requirements.

We talk to survive

The desire to communicate is hard-wired into all of us. It was an effective survival mechanism for our ancestors, who shared information about food supplies, dangerous animals, and weather patterns, and it continues to help us understand our world, including what behavior is appropriate and how to act in certain situations. People talk because sharing information makes life easier.

Our motivations for sharing online are the same as the motivations of our ancestors. We often update our status because we need information. Research has shown that the majority of tweets that mention brands are seeking information rather than expressing sentiment, and one in five tweets is about a product or service.

We talk to form social bonds

Decades of research in social psychology has shown that people talk to form and grow social bonds. Conversations ensure that we understand one another. One key aspect of this is communal laughter. Research has shown that if people laugh together with strangers, they are as generous to them as they are to their friends.

Talking to someone sends out strong social signals. It shows people that we consider them important enough to spend time together. This is also true online. People update their status to produce a feeling of connectedness, even when people are geographically distant.

Status updates often contain social gestures and people often respond by liking or commenting on the content, not because they actually like the content but because they want to send out a social signal to build the relationship. In many cases, the conversation that follows a status update is much more important than the status update itself. More than the act of sharing content, marketing campaigns need to support conversations.

Research has shown that social bonds are central to our happiness. The deeper the relationships someone has, the happier they will be. Women talk to form social bonds more often than men. Many of their conversations are aimed at building and maintaining their social network. Men more often talk about themselves or things they claim to be knowledgeable about, often because they are trying to impress the people around them.

We talk to help others

When researchers have studied why people share, they have consistently found that many do it to help others. This is an altruistic act with no expected reciprocity. For many, it is important to them to be perceived as helpful, and so they try to share content that they think other people will find valuable. This is especially clear when we see people share information that may not reflect positively on themselves.

We talk to manage how others perceive us

While people talk to make their lives easier, to form social bonds, and to help others, most of our conversations are a form of reputation management. Research has shown that most conversations are recounting personal experiences, or gossiping about who is doing what with whom. Only 5 percent is criticism or negative gossip. The vast majority of these conversations are positive, as we are driven to preserve a positive reputation.

Our identities are constantly shaped and refined by the conversations we have. Our values were passed on from conversations with our family, community, society, country, church, and through our profession, and are continually refined by the people we spend time with.

[......]

WHAT WE TALK ABOUT

Many of our conversations are about other people

One study on what people talk about found that about two thirds of conversations revolve around social issues. Another study found that social relationships and recounting personal experiences account for about 70 percent of conversations. Of the conversations about social relationships, about half are about people not present. The anthropologist Robin Dunbar described these conversations as “Who is doing what with whom, and whether it’s a good or bad thing, who is in and who is out, and why.” Conversations about other people and their behavior help us understand what is socially acceptable in different situations by revealing how the people we’re talking to react to the behavior of the person not present.

Understanding how others have acted, as well as how the people we care about and trust react to those actions, shapes our behavior. It shapes what ideas we agree with, and how we may behave in the future. Supporting conversations about other people is critical for social products and for marketing campaigns based on social behavior.

We share feelings, not facts

Creative agencies the world over try to create content that people will spread. In order to do so, they need to understand what people share, and why. The vast majority of “viral” campaigns don’t spread at all, and this is often because the content is factual. Many research studies have shown that people don’t share facts, they share feelings.

Jonah Berger and Katherine Milkman studied the most-emailed articles on the New York Times over more than a six-month period, totaling 7,500 items. They expected to find content that included factual information that might help others, such as diets or gadgets, but instead found that people shared the content that triggered the most arousing emotions. This included positive emotions such as awe, and negative emotions such as anger and anxiety. Emotions that were not arousing, for example sadness, did not trigger sharing of content.

Content that is positive, informative, surprising, or interesting is shared more often than content that is not, and content that is prominently featured is shared more often than content that is not, but these factors are minor compared to how arousing the content is.

These findings have important implications for advertising. BMW ran a successful campaign called “The Hire,” which induced feelings of anxiety through elaborate car chases and generated millions of views. Content that is non-arousing, for example, content that makes people feel comfortable and relaxed, is unlikely to be shared. Public health information may spread more effectively if it induces feelings of anxiety rather than sadness.

We talk about the things that surround us

Our everyday offline conversations tend to be about whatever comes to mind, independent of how interesting it is. And what usually comes to mind first is what is in our current environment (we’ll see later how this works for brands). If we’re talking to good friends, even our desire to appear interesting takes a backseat to environmental cues. Although we do craft our conversations in order to shape others’ perceptions of us,6 most day-to-day conversations with people we know well are about everyday things and are cued by our environment.

Conversely, our desire to appear a certain way to others is a bigger factor in what we talk about online than offline. Offline, many of our conversations are driven by a need to avoid awkward silences. While people most often talk about what is visible or cued by their environment offline, when online they don’t need to fill a conversation space so they can think more carefully about what might be interesting to others.

We talk about brands in passing

The research firm Keller Fay estimates that people talk about approximately 70 brands every week, an average of 10 a day. We might imagine that people talk at length about the pros and cons of competing brands, but most of the time this is not so. Most references to brands in conversations happen in passing. People are talking about something loosely related to the brand, the brand comes up for a few sentences, and then disappears, as the conversation continues about the core topic. When people talk about brands, they are usually not motivated by the brand but by the instinct to converse with others and fill conversation spaces. We need to understand the incidental nature of brand conversations when planning marketing campaigns.

Research has shown that around Halloween, when there are more environmental cues about the color orange, products that are orange (Reese’s Pieces, orange soda) are more top of mind. Other research found that products that are cued by the surrounding environment are talked about 22 percent of the time, versus 4 percent for products not cued by the environment. Products that are publicly visible are talked about 19 percent of the time, versus 2 percent for products that are not publicly visible. For example, in one research study, upcoming concerts were talked about much more often when there were CDs in the room. We talk about eating much more often than technology or media, yet many assume that the latter are objectively more interesting.

This has profound implications for understanding how people talk about brands. Products that are visible and accessible will be talked about more. Products that are not naturally in people’s environment need to build associations with things that are in people’s environments. Yet, samples are not a substitute for the actual thing. Coupons and samples do not drive more conversations, but giving people the full product to try, so that it is consistently in the person’s environment, can lead to a 20 percent increase in conversations about that product.

Interesting (arousing) products are talked about more initially, but once the novelty wears off, they are talked about less than things cued by people’s environments. Frequency of use also drives conversations, as products used frequently are easier to recall from memory and are therefore more top of mind. People talk about big brands far more often than smaller brands. This is not surprising, as bigger brands are more accessible—more visible and easier to recall from memory.

Because we communicate much more frequently with the small number of people we are emotionally closest to, about half of conversations that mention brands are with a partner or family member. Of these brand conversations, 71 percent are face to face, 17 percent are on the phone, and only 9 percent are online. When it comes to spreading ideas, we need to target people’s closest ties.

[......]

WHO WE TALK TO

Most of our communication is with the people closest to us

We like to think that we talk to a wide and diverse set of people, but the reality is that we talk to the same, small group of people again and again. Research shows that people have consistent communication with between 7 and 15 people, but that most conversations are with our five strongest ties. We communicate with the same 5 to 10 people 80 percent of the time. Keller Fay found that 27 percent of our conversations are with our spouse/partner, 25 percent are with a family member, and 10 percent are with a best friend. That’s 62 percent of our conversations with the people closest to us. Only 5 percent of our conversations are with acquaintances, and only 2 percent are with strangers. The remaining 31 percent is with the rest of the people in our social network.

Research shows that people use social networks primarily to strengthen the bonds with their strong ties, and secondarily to build relationships with weak ties. When we looked at how many different people members communicated with directly on Facebook every week, including private messages, chats, wall posts, and likes and comments on status updates, we saw that the average was just 4 people. When we looked at how many different people they communicated with every month, it was only 6 people. This is despite the fact that these people are checking Facebook almost every day. Other research has shown that the more people see each other in person or talk on the phone, the more they communicate online.

We can map how frequently we communicate with others onto our social network structure:

We communicate more with the people toward the center of our social network, the people we are emotionally closest to.

Who is listening to us changes what we talk about

Who we talk to online has a large impact on what we talk about. Many people think carefully before posting status updates. Sometimes they have an explicit audience in mind for the post and need to consider whether it will be interesting or offending to the rest of the people they are connected to.

People are very conscious of being seen to be communicating information others will find interesting, funny, or useful. As they usually see only positive feedback, for example “likes” or comments on Facebook posts, it’s hard for them to know what other people find valuable. For many people the only way is to look at posts that receive no feedback, assume people didn’t find it interesting, and factor the characteristics of that post into future decisions about whether to post something. Sometimes people post updates broadly, as receiving serendipitous replies outweighs any risk of communicating uninteresting information to others.

We communicate differently to explicit groups of friends compared with larger groups of people.

When we talk in public, we’re very careful about what we say. For example, online public ratings tend to be disproportionately positive when they’re linked to our real identity. This is especially true when the other party involved can reciprocate. When people post anonymously, their ratings tend to be almost 20 percent lower than when they use their real names. When ratings are not visible to the party being rated, people give negative reviews more frequently.

Il ruolo dell'emozione

Per dimostrare scientificamente che le emozioni svolgono un'azione causale nella formulazione dei giudizi morali, non è sufficiente evidenziare un'attivazione di aree cerebrali deputate all'analisi delle emozioni stesse. Infatti, l'osservazione che un'area cerebrale si attiva mentre il soggetto analizza un dilemma morale non implica che tale attività abbia un'influenza sull'esito del giudizio. Si potrebbe trattare di un'attivazione conseguente al giudizio appena formato.

Damasio si propose invece di valutare se i pazienti con un danno a un'area corticale implicata nell'analisi delle emozioni presentassero o meno un deficit di valutazione morale. Nei suoi primi studi in questo campo, analizzò il cranio di un paziente, Phineas Gage, che nel 1848 subì una lesione traumatica dei lobi frontali dell'encefalo. Le descrizioni cliniche su Phineas Gage riportavano un deficit nell'uso delle emozioni in alcune decisioni di comportamento sociale, mentre le capacità razionali erano intatte. Il laboratorio di Damasio localizzò il danno cerebrale alla corteccia prefrontale ventromediale (vmpfc) (Damasio et al., 1994). Studi recenti hanno confermato che la VMPFC svolge un ruolo di primo piano nella sensibilità emotiva e soprattutto nelle emozioni sociali. In uno studio esteso a più soggetti analizzati direttamente, il gruppo di Damasio ha dimostrato che, nei pazienti con una lesione alla VMPFC, in alcuni dilemmi morali prevalevano giudizi più utilitaristici rispetto a quelli formulati da soggetti di controllo (Koenigs et al., 2007). Questo fenomeno era limitato alle situazioni in cui una delle opzioni scatenava un'intensa risposta emozionale, che metteva in atto una forte sensazione di repulsione emotiva dell'atto che il soggetto avrebbe dovuto immaginare di compiere. Era come se i pazienti con lesione alla VMPFC non provassero tale avversione emotiva o non ne tenessero conto nei loro giudizi, che di conseguenza erano meno emotivi, più razionali e utilitaristici. Per tutti gli altri tipi di scenario morale non vi era differenza tra i pazienti e i soggetti sani. La dimostrazione che una lesione alla VMPFC, importante per l'analisi delle emozioni, modifica l'esito dei giudizi morali emotivamente coinvolgenti implica che alcuni elementi emotivi giocano un ruolo causale nel processo del giudizio.

Un'altra linea di evidenze a favore di un'azione delle emozioni nel giudizio morale deriva da esperimenti di psicologia compiuti dal gruppo di ricerca di Jonathan Haidt (Haidt, 2001; 2007). Egli afferma che i giudizi morali nascono solitamente da intuizioni di cui non siamo coscienti. I soggetti riescono comunque a dare una spiegazione razionale delle loro scelte, ma questa è sovente una costruzione post hoc, che non ha esercitato nessun ruolo nella decisione.

Haidt ha dimostrato che l'intuizione morale è fortemente influenzata dalle emozioni, senza che il soggetto ne abbia coscienza. Ad esempio, il disgusto, evocato tramite odori sgradevoli o mediante suggestione post-ipnotica, provoca un aumento della severità con cui viene giudicata un'azione altrui. Tuttavia, Haidt afferma che le emozioni sono una spinta a decidere in una determinata direzione, ma non ci possono forzare in modo incondizionato. Vi sono meccanismi razionali e, soprattutto, sociali che ci possono permettere di inibire le risposte dettate dall'intuizione.

La relazione emozioni/razionalità nei giudizi morali

Secondo la teoria di Damasio, l'attivazione della VMPFC dovrebbe portare a scelte morali guidate dagli aspetti emotivi. Diversi studi di imaging funzionale hanno indagato le aree cerebrali che mostravano aumenti di attività durante la ponderazione degli elementi in gioco al fine della formulazione di un giudizio morale. Il gruppo di ricerca di Joshua Greene sottopose ai soggetti dilemmi morali con diversi gradi di contenuti emotivi e razionali (Greene et al., 2004). Nei casi che comportavano un maggiore coinvolgimento emotivo personale si osservava una maggiore attivazione della VMPFC, in accordo con il suo ruolo nella valutazione degli elementi emozionali. Nei giudizi utilitaristici e per decisioni morali particolarmente difficili, in cui il soggetto valutava a lungo prima di scegliere la soluzione che riteneva più giusta, si attivava maggiormente l'area dorsolaterale della corteccia prefrontale (dlpfc), coinvolta nel pensiero puramente razionale. Sulla base di questi risultati, Greene ipotizzò che i giudizi personali siano ampiamente guidati da risposte emotivo-sociali, mentre quelli impersonali dipenderebbero da processi cognitivi. Dal contrasto tra l'attivazione della VMPFC nei giudizi con una forte componente emotiva rispetto all'attività della DLPFC, legata invece alla valutazione razionale, Greene e colleghi hanno proposto che il risultato del giudizio morale nasca dalla competizione tra aree cerebrali emotive e cognitive (Greene et al., 2004). Quindi, anziché riconoscere un ruolo del ragionamento cosciente, in cui entrano in gioco fattori emotivi e considerazioni razionali, la teoria di Greene suggerisce una concezione meccanicistica, in cui l'attività delle aree cerebrali emotive compete con quella delle aree razionali: la decisione dipenderebbe dalla vittoria dell'area che riesce a prendere il sopravvento sulle altre.