What does Camtasia or ScreenFlow Offer That Screencast-O-Matic Doesn’t?

What does Camtasia or ScreenFlow offer that Screencast-o-matic Doesn’t? snapshot - facebook question

I see this question — or variations of it — a lot in discussion groups where folks are creating their first online course.  Usually, it’s in context of someone wanting to spend the least amount of money for screencasting/editing software as they create their first online course.  Understandable.

First some helpful references

  • Camtasia Studio (for Windows – $299), Camtasia For Macintosh ($99) and ScreenFlow (for Macintosh – $99) are powerful, multi-featured downloadable software products that let you — in a nutshell — capture, edit and publish video and audio of anything you can display on your computer screen. 
  • Screencast-o-matic ($15/year for a Pro account), is a low cost alternative that you can use directly online with either a PC or Macintosh.

My Response

For my part, in response to the oft-asked question about the main advantages of software like ScreenFlow or Camtasia over Screencast-o-matic:

I think screencast-o-matic (SOM) is actually a pretty good (I daresay even excellent) software if the course objectives (and of its marketing) call for BASIC screen/voice capture with the occasional bubble, box or text callout as an overlay. In fact, at $15/year (for the Pro version), I think it’s actually quite powerful for the price.

At some point though some online content creators (though not all) find the need to differentiate their presentations a little more from the “basic” look and feel.  (And, let’s face it, to differentiate theirs from the run-of-the-mill “death-by-PowerPoint” type presentations.)  So it’s for those folks that I think one of the other tools like Camtasia or ScreenFlow might actually be more cost effective.  (As an aside: Contrary to what some may believe, the learning curve for comparable functions in Camtasia or ScreenFlow isn’t really more steep than that for SOM.) 

Indeed, there are many features that will teeter the scale one way or the other if you were to compare each feature one-by-one.   But one of the key features that I think gives a lot of power to tools like ScreenFlow or Camtasia over SOM is in their capacity for you to have many more LAYERS (“tracks”) in your screencasting project.  This multi-track capability gives you the ability to layer video objects, images and audio clips over your main presentation and with much more flexibility to change different properties for each of those objects independently of any other object.

For example, in addition to a basic PowerPoint and voiceover narration, some folks may want to overlay a music track, a video clip, and/or a video interview that supports the main presentation — these require 3 or 4 layers (or more). In contrast, SOM only gives you one layer.  (Two layers could be argued, but certainly not more than that.)

(Click here to watch free previews from this ScreenFlow course.)
(Click here to watch free previews from our Camtasia Studio course.)

The video above is an excerpt from Lecture #2 in my course, “Beyond PowerPoint: Teach Online Now With ScreenFlow For Mac.” It shows some of the layering and property manipulations (animations) I mentioned that is much more powerfully done in ScreenFlow or Camtasia than in Screencast-o-matic.

Camtasia or ScreenFlow isn’t for everybody

Again, not everybody will need or want all that extra “flair” in their presentations.  In which case, if you’re in that camp, then screencast-o-matic should work just fine — especially if price is a huge factor.

Posted in Best Screencast Software Series, Camtasia, Courses, Digital-Know-How, reviews | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Udemy’s New Revenue Sharing Model Is Off To a Rough Start

November 3, 2013

What Does Udemy Pay Its Instructors (Now)?

Last month Udemy, a leading marketplace for user-generated online learning, announced a big change to the Udemy revenue sharing model.  It took effect a couple of days ago. Not surprisingly, it has generated a lot of controversy from the Udemy instructor-base.  And, since I’ve previously encouraged students of my online screencasting courses to consider Udemy as a ready-for-you channel for publishing and monetizing their digital-know-how, I felt it was worth helping to clarify–at least for my students–where much of the confusion seems to be at the moment and what you need to know before selling your courses through Udemy.

The Gist Of the New Model

image - figure 1 flow diagram

Figure 1 – Determining Procuring Cause (click to enlarge)

I won’t re-hash each of the terms.  For that, you can read Udemy’s announcement via the link above.  But the gist of it is fundamentally based on an accounting of who (whom?) is the original “source” of the subscriber.

My Realtor(tm) friends have a term called “procuring cause.”  Basically, it refers to the agent who brings the buyer to a purchase transaction.  This “source-”thingy with Udemy subscribers is similar.  This issue is central to the new payout model, so understanding it is key to this whole confusing business.  It’s implications are:

  • If Udemy is the procuring cause (source) of a new subscriber, then Udemy takes a 50% share of your course’s list price.  (After any promotional discounts, if applicable.)  [Note: But, see scenarios 3, 3a and 3b in Figure 2 further below for a special case about how this share is modified based on a particular channel through which Udemy acquires certain subscribers.]
  • If you, as the instructor, are the procuring cause of a new subscriber, then you get to keep 97% of your list price.  (After any promotional discounts, if applicable.)

The flow diagram above (Figure 1) attempts to trace the rules by which you (or Udemy) become the procuring cause of a new subscriber.  (*Sigh…* It’s sad that we need such a diagram, but it is what it is.)   While it sounds simple on its face, there’s an often-missed click-timer issue embedded in this rule that makes things less intuitive.  Trace the blue path to see how this timer thing applies.   The essence is this:

(Assuming the person who clicks your link isn’t already a Udemy subscriber then) You get credited as the procuring cause for that subscriber but ONLY IF she/he creates a Udemy account within 24 hours of first landing on the Udemy site through your couponed link.

  • Upside (sort of): Even if they don’t buy your course during that first 24-hour window, you’re still credited as the “source” PROVIDED THAT they create an account during that first 24-hour window.)
  • Downside (sort of): If the 24 hour window expires and the visitor still has not signed up for a new account, then your best hope is for a subsequent 2-hour window whenever (and IF ever) that student comes back in the future AND happens to remember — and use — your coupon code.

Purchase Scenarios

In the tables below (Figure 2 – Udemy-side Revenue Share; Figure 3 – Instructor-side Revenue Share), I laid out common scenarios.

  • The Subscriber Source column caveats the percentages on the basis of procuring cause for the subscriber.
  • The Channel column further caveats the percentages on the basis of additional incentives (e.g., paid ads, in-house promos, etc.) that may have been used to get the subscriber to buy a course.
  • The remaining columns are hopefully self-explanatory.
  • Finally, the rows with the yellow highlights are scenarios that seem to be all abuzz in the Udemy Faculty Lounge at the moment.
image - figure 2 - udemy-share

Figure 2 – Udemy-side Rev Share (click to enlarge)

image - figure 3 - instructor share

Figure 3 – Instructor-side Rev Share (click to enlarge)

In the Udemy-Instructor battlefield (that’s how it feels at the moment), there are 3 FAQs that seem to be particularly controversial.

  • “Why am I now only getting a 25% share on purchases of my courses even when it appears that I am the original source of the subscriber?”
  • “Whoooaah… Udemy gets a 75% share for life of purchases by Udemy advertising-generated subscribers?”
  • “What the hell is this 24-hour/2-hour thingy about?”

FAQ #1: Why am I now only getting 25% share on purchases of my courses even when it appears that I am the original source of the subscriber?”

Well, as it turns out, the instructor is apparently not the procuring cause of the subscriber in these cases.  As far as I can tell from the discussion, much of the confusion here seems to stem from caveats related to scenarios 3a and 3b above.  (Go up there and take a look at Figure 2 now before continuing.)

It’s understandable that many of us, as Udemy instructors, expect that if the payment report says that the sale is “organic” and that an instructor-coupon was used by a subscriber in the sale, then Udemy should only have taken a 50% cut; not the 75% share that’s causing so much consternation.

image - figure 4 - reporting format

Figure 4 – Snippet of current payment report format (click to enlarge)

But here’s the thing: the source AND the channel are what count.  What’s not so transparent in the current reporting format is who, originally, was the source (procuring cause) of the subscriber in question AND what channel was used to procure that subscriber.  As scenarios 3, 3a and 3b above try to summarize from the discussions is that:  if Udemy is the source AND the subscriber came in by way of an advertisement that Udemy paid for (e.g., Facebook, Google, Groupon, etc.) then Udemy takes the higher 75% cut.  And if that weren’t controversial enough, then add this phrase:  For Life.

That last bit is a nice segue to FAQ #2.

FAQ #2:  ”Whoooaah…Udemy gets a 75% share for life on purchases by Udemy advertising-generated subscribers??”

Um, yes.  (I was gob-smacked by this one, as well.)  Unfortunately, I don’t think this point was sufficiently outlined in Udemy’s original announcement, which is what I think is causing so much consternation.  Hell, I just re-read that whole announcement and can’t find a reference to it at all.  But, when threading through the discussions in the Udemy Instructor Lounge battlefield, there’s this revelation from one of Udemy’s reps:

image - fig 5 - udemy share on ad-generated subscribers

Figure 5 – Udemy share on ad-generated subscribers (click to enlarge)

So, there it is.

FAQ #3: “What the hell is this 24-hour/2-hour thingy about?”

This last one in my “top 3 FAQs” was indeed mentioned in the original announcement.  But it’s one of those things that bears a visual graphic to fully appreciate.  So, again, it’s worth taking time to trace through Figure 1 above.  By tracing the blue boxes in Figure 1, you’ll get the sense of a clock that starts in the nebulous background that governs affiliate marketing engines.  I won’t re-hash a narrative about; I’ll let you trace the diagram and revisit the sections underneath it about “Upside” / “Downside”.


Figure 1 is the centerpiece of the model; it’s worth taking time to understand it.  While Udemy unfortunately spins it by making it sound simple enough, (paraphrase: if you source it, you own it; if we source it, we own it), the mechanics of the 24-hour/2-hour timer bears some highlighting, as does the 75% for life scenarios in 3a and 3b of Figure 2 above.

I’m reserving my comments for now about how much I think this new model tilts the scale in Udemy’s favor (or not) at the expense of their partners, but keep an eye out for a future post with my thoughts on it.

In the meantime, I’d welcome your thoughts about whether or not you think it’s a fair deal and, more importantly, how would you advise other would-be Udemy instructors about whether or not you’d recommend they put the effort in to creating a course for the Udemy marketplace?

Posted in Courses, Digital-Know-How, events, Q&A | Tagged | 16 Comments

Tips For Editing and Polishing Your Skype video Interview (Part 3)

Part 3: Editing and Polishing Your Skype Video Interview


This is part 3 in the 3-part series.  In part 1, I showed you how I arranged the cameras, the microphone and software settings for the interview.  In part 2, I demo’d the recording while showing camera and microphone alignment.  In this video, I’ll show you the end-product of the raw recording; you’ll also see some helpful tips for editing and enhancing your Skype video interview so you can present it to your audience with a little more polish.

Tip:  If you scroll down, you can see a sample of what the final polish might look like.

Note:  It’s worth keeping in mind that although I used Camtasia for Macintosh to demo the recording of this Skype interview, the set up and process for recording is just as easily conducted using Camtasia Studio (for Windows) and ScreenFlow for Macintosh.

P.S.  I used ScreenFlow to record, edit and publish the demo video itself.

A Sample of the Final Interview

The short video above is one quickie example of the polished interview we used as a sample in the tutorial series.

More in this Skype interview screencast series

Posted in Camtasia, How to, Interviews, Q&A | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

How to screencast your Skype video interview – Part 2: The Interview

Part 2: Recording the Skype Interview

This is part 2 in the 3-part series.  In part 1, I showed you how I arranged the cameras, the microphone and software settings for the interview.  In this video, we follow up on the settings and proceed with the interview itself via Skype — and we record it with a screencast editor, such as Camtasia or ScreenFlow.

It’s worth keeping in mind that although I used Camtasia for Macintosh to demo the recording of this Skype interview, the set up and process for recording is just as easily conducted using Camtasia Studio (for Windows) and ScreenFlow for Macintosh.

Key highlights

Some of the key points that’ll help you keep things straight in the video above are the following:

  • What did I use the Skype camera angle for?  I used the Skype camera angle to illuminate my profile for the benefit of the interviewee.
  • What did I use the screencast editor’s camera angle for? I used the screencast editor’s camera angle (Camtasia Mac in this case, or also Camtasia Studio or ScreenFlow) to illuminate my profile for the benefit of engaging the audience who later views the interview video online.

image - skype camera angle

image screencast camera angle

More in this Skype interview screencast series

Posted in Camtasia, How to, Interviews, Q&A | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

How to Screencast Your Skype Video Interview – Part 1: The Set Up

Part 1: Screencast Settings For Your Skype Interview

Thumbnail - question about screencasting SkypeSome of the subscribers to our screencasting courses on Udemy asked about how I set up to record video interviews on a platform like Skype.  I love the interest in this because I think interviews — whether video or audio-only — are great ways to create interesting content for your blogsite audience, or otherwise supplement your online course with compelling instructional content from other industry experts in your course’s subject matter.

Three Points Of View

I’ll do this in three parts.  This post is Part 1.  In it, I’ll focus on showing you how I set up the hardware, software and software settings to prepare a Skype interview with 3 points of view:  You (the interviewer), your subject (the interviewee), and a third camera angle that your audience will relate to.

Then, in Part 2, I’ll demo the actual screen recording of a Skype video interview using the settings I show in Part 1.  That will then set us up nicely to compare the recording from Part 2 with the end result that we’ll use for editing and polishing in Part 3.

Strange Bedfellows and Supplemental Screenshots

Just in case you were wondering, I used ScreenFlow as the capture and editing software for the video above.  And I used Camtasia for Mac as the demo platform.  Consequently, the settings I show in the demo uses those from Camtasia for Mac and Skype for Mac. But, as I explain at about the 2:00 point in the video, the same settings are available in both ScreenFlow for Mac, Camtasia Studio version 8.1 (for Windows) and Skype for Windows.  Below are screenshots of the recording configuration window in each of the “Big 3″ screencast editors.

image-camtasia mac recording configuration

Camtasia Mac recording configuration.

image - screenflow configuration

ScreenFlow recording configuration

image - camtasia studio recording configuration

Camtasia Studio (v8.1) recording configuration

Your Turn

Do you tend to edit your online interviews?  What software do you use for capture and editing?

More in this series

Posted in Camtasia, How to, Interviews, Q&A | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Mel Aclaro – My studio setup for screencasting production

My feature post in Telestream’s The Screening Room blog a couple of days ago generated a few questions about this image of me in one of my studios.

“I like to say I have two studios: my office and my ‘office annex’ locations.  The latter being whatever regional park or coffee house I tend to find myself in…”  ~Mel Aclaro

The one above is obviously from my office studio.  I pulled it from the ScreenFlow article (ref: Meet the ScreenFlow-er: Screencasting Wizard, Mel Aclaro) and decided to visually index it with cross-linked details to help supplement answers I give about the gear I use.  Click any of the markers in the image to learn more.

Your Studio Setup Doesn’t Have to Be Costly

So here’s the thing, although some of the equipment I use in my office is a bit pricey for the home-based screencaster, you can definitely get by with less budget-heavy gear AND still be able to get professional quality production value for your online course or website video/screencast.  I cover some of those in Sections 3 and 4 of the Digital-Know-How course, but I also provide some alternate links above for some of the more cost-effective gear.

Another resource you might want to take a look at, as well, is my previous post on The Poor Man’s Home Video Studio: 3 Must-Watch Techniques.

Your turn: Your recommendations for studio equipment?

What microphones, video, lighting or other hardware/software have you used that is both cost effective and quality enhancing?

Posted in best practices, Interviews, Q&A | Tagged | Comments Off

The future of storytelling: Collaboration, quality, engagement

The barriers to entry are much lower… anyone, if they want to, can really be creative and say what they want to say.

A compelling snippet here (at least for me) from the Future of Storytelling’s (FoST) channel.  Some of the points here that resonated with me related to interviewee’s perspective on the importance of collaboration in content creation, quality, intimacy (in public forums), technology’s role in democratization of video content, and engagement.

The interviewee is Lisa Donovan, one of the cofounders of Maker Studios, a collaborative “talent-first media company founded by YouTube artists.”  The network was founded in 2009 to provide the best environment for artists to create, distribute, and monetize their original content on YouTube; the content produced at Maker Studios gets about four billion views each month.

image-reinventing storytellingMy takeaways / Highlights

Collaboration.  Working on one channel… we didn’t know how sustainable that would be and we thought that there’s a bigger opportunity here. If we came together with other like-minded people who were making their living on YouTube and we shared resources and we shared audiences, we could all benefit from that…

Immediacy and Quality.  We can now respond so quickly to something happening in current events…. You have people now getting more viewership and spending less money on the product that they’re making; it’s bringing up the question: What is quality? Just because it costs $100M to make a movie… does that mean it’s quality if I don’t enjoy it? (Nor with) I think is interesting or as engaging as something that’s 15 minutes that costs almost nothing…?

Intimacy.  What we’re seeing a lot more now is people being a lot more open with their life and sharing their life… there is sort of an intimacy that is created between the audience and the person creating the content.  I think structure and format and experience are all incredibly important when it comes to quality…

New Technology.  Technology has changed the landscape drastically. This is a huge moment in entertainment because you can’t have one studio or one person define what quality is. Now you have audiences defining, for themselves, what quality is…

Engagement and democratization of content.  Anybody who is successful in creating quality online content is a master at engaging with their audience…. The barriers to entry are much lower… anyone if they want to can really be creative and say what they want to say.  And that’s exciting…

Your turn: Maybe it’s time to give collaboration a second look?

The points around collaboration really resonated with me here.  In the dialog I have with others in my courses and professional networks, it’s not uncommon for me to find folks with truly great ideas for courses or other content that shouldneed–to get online, but that, all too often, never see the light of day because of perceived barriers to content creation and work effort.   Are there ideas you have that could benefit from collaboration with a like-minded content creator?

Posted in video blogging | Comments Off