Explainer videos: animation or live action?

An explainer video takes one idea and makes it clear in a few minutes. For an NGO, ministry or UN agency, that might be how to register for a programme, what a new policy changes or how a project works on the ground. The temptation is to start with style: "we want an animation". Start with purpose instead.

WITNESS, in its guidance for the ESCR-Net network, asks three planning questions: what change are you seeking, who do you need to influence, and what message does that audience need to hear?¹ It adds that a video should make clear what viewers should do, say or support.¹ Its advice on length is blunt: "Less is more! People tend to watch shorter videos."¹ FAO's practitioner guide agrees that videos should be concise and focus on the core message, and recommends breaking a complex subject into simpler subtopics rather than making one long film.²

Live action films real people and real places. Animation, including motion graphics (animated text, icons, maps, charts and illustration), builds every frame from scratch. The question is not which looks better. It is what your viewer needs to see in order to understand and believe you.

In our own practice, we work through the trade-offs below with the commissioning team before agreeing a style, ideally at the briefing stage rather than after a script exists. None of them is a rule on its own; taken together, they usually point clearly one way.

• Live action: strongest when a real face, voice or place is the evidence, and when emotion matters.
• Live action: depends on access, consent, weather, travel and people being available on the day.
• Animation: strongest for abstract ideas, step-by-step processes, systems, data and things that have not happened yet.
• Animation: can show a story without showing the people in it, and is easier to update or re-voice later.
• Animation: can feel distant or generic if it relies on stock characters instead of a clear idea.

Some stories cannot safely be told with faces. UNICEF's ethical reporting guidelines say that certain children must always have their names changed and their visual identity obscured, including victims of sexual abuse or exploitation, children charged with or convicted of a crime and child combatants holding weapons.³ The same guidelines advise that, when in doubt about whether a child is at risk, you should report on the general situation rather than on the individual child.³ An animated explainer video lets you do exactly that without leaving the screen empty.

Live action has its own techniques. UN Women's guidance on digital video lists filming against the light, shading faces, filming from behind, showing only hands or obscuring faces in editing.⁴ WITNESS's ethical guidelines discuss how to report on abuse without sharing footage or exposing the identity of the people in it.⁵ Remember too that once a video is public, "it can be used in ways that are beyond your control".¹

Animation is not a licence to invent. UN Women's guidance asks filmmakers to report truthfully and not distort the chronology of events.⁴ If you animate a real testimony, keep to what the person said, agree the visuals with them and label the scenes as illustration.

Live action wins when the people themselves are the proof. A farmer demonstrating a technique, a nurse explaining a new clinic routine or a young entrepreneur showing her workshop is more convincing than any drawing. FAO's guide puts people presenting issues "in their own words" at the centre of good development video.² WITNESS notes that most human rights videos combine footage of the place and community with individual interviews.¹

Often the best answer is a hybrid. FAO describes adding animation, graphics and voice-over after shooting in the field as a normal part of production.² A short live-action interview gives the human anchor, and motion graphics carry the numbers, steps or map that would be dull or impossible to film. In our experience this mix suits development audiences well, because it keeps a real voice at the heart of the explanation.

Whatever the style, the explanation is won or lost on paper. FAO recommends preparing a script that focuses on the key messages and non-negotiable points, then designing the storyboard on the basis of that script.² It defines a storyboard as "a sequence of drawings representing the shots planned for a video" and calls it the producer's creative tool.² It also asks that technical content be vetted and approved by subject-matter specialists before the video is shared widely.² For animation this matters even more, because every change after the artwork is built takes time.

Sound carries most of an explainer. FAO notes that narration is often the primary means of transmitting information in a video, and that voice-over should be recorded separately in a noise-free environment.² It warns that with poor sound the audience will quickly lose interest, that music should not interfere with the information, and that fancy transitions can interrupt the flow of speech and become communication noise.²

• One idea per scene, written to be heard, not read.
• Lock the script, including figures and names, before any animation starts.
• Approve the storyboard frame by frame with the technical lead.
• Record a clean voice-over in a quiet room, with no narration over interviews.

Explainers are often needed in several languages. FAO lists titles, subtitles, captions, labels and the names of people interviewed among the elements added during editing.² In our own practice, we keep on-screen text separate from the artwork in animation projects, so a Kinyarwanda, French or Swahili version means swapping text and voice rather than redrawing scenes.

Think about where people will actually watch. WITNESS advises planning when and where your audience will see the video and sequencing your distribution.¹ FAO reminds teams to provide access for community members who do not have smartphones and to export files in a widely compatible format.² A version for a community screening, a vertical cut for social media and a captioned web version can all come from one well-planned production.

If you are still unsure, answer these questions honestly with your team, your technical lead and, where possible, someone from the audience you want to reach. If most answers point the same way, you have your style; if they split, a hybrid is probably right.

• Is there a real person whose voice or face is the strongest evidence? Choose live action.
• Is the idea abstract, technical or about the future? Choose animation.
• Would showing people put them at risk or break safeguarding rules? Choose animation or anonymised live action.
• Do you need numbers, maps or steps on screen? Add motion graphics.
• Will the content need updating or new language versions soon? Favour animation or modular graphics.

• One change, one audience, one core message agreed
• Clear call to action for the viewer
• Style chosen for evidence, safety and clarity
• Safeguarding and consent checked for anyone shown or heard
• Script signed off by technical specialists
• Storyboard approved before production starts
• Clean voice-over and restrained music
• Captions and language versions planned from the start