You get an email: "Hi, the website isn't working. The button doesn't do anything when I click it. Can you fix it ASAP?"
Now you have to send 10 questions just to understand what's actually broken. Which button? Which page? What browser? What did you expect to happen? Did you see an error message? What were you doing before it broke?
Two days and eight emails later, you finally understand the issue. Could've been fixed in 10 minutes if you'd known what was broken from the start.
Here's a better way: ask for a 30-second video instead.
Client records their screen showing the bug. You watch the video. You see the exact page (URL is visible in the browser), the exact button they're clicking, what happens when they click it, what browser they're using, and their entire workflow leading up to the issue. If they have dev tools open, you even see console errors.
Zero questions needed. You know exactly what's broken. You fix it. Done.
This is the core idea behind Lantern—make it dead simple for clients to show you what's broken instead of describing it. Though honestly, you can do this with any bug tracker or even just email. The video is what matters, not the tool.
Why video works better than text descriptions:
Text bug reports are fundamentally ambiguous. "The form doesn't work" could mean anything. Which form? What doesn't work about it? What did you enter? What error appeared? Every bug report becomes an interrogation where you're trying to reconstruct what happened from vague clues.
Video removes all ambiguity. The client shows you the form. Shows you what they entered. Shows you clicking submit. Shows you the error. You see everything they see. There's nothing to interpret or guess about.
This saves absurd amounts of time. The text approach goes: client sends vague description (2 minutes). You send 5 questions (5 minutes). Client answers 3 of them tomorrow (10 minutes). You send 3 more questions (3 minutes). Client answers the next day (20 minutes). You finally understand what happened after 2 days and 6 emails.
The video approach goes: client records 30-second video. You watch 30-second video. You understand immediately. Total time: 1 minute.
That's not a small difference. That's 2 hours saved per bug. Multiply by 20 bugs per month and you've saved 40 hours. A full work week. Every month.
The objection everyone has:
"My clients won't record videos."
I thought this too. Turns out it's wrong. Clients love recording videos once they try it. Why? Because it's actually easier than writing a detailed bug report.
Think about what you're asking them to do with text: describe a visual problem using words. Remember which specific elements were involved. Recall the exact sequence of actions. Use technical terminology they don't know. Write paragraphs explaining something that would be obvious if you could just see it.
Now compare that to video: click record, show the problem, click stop, send link. That's it. No struggling to find the right words. No wondering if you explained it clearly. Just show what happened.
Plus, clients learn fast: video = you understand immediately = bug gets fixed faster. After they send one video and you fix the bug same day because you actually understood the issue, they're sold. Every bug report after that includes a video.
How to actually get clients to do this:
Don't overthink it. Don't send them tutorials or explain all of Loom's features. Just tell them what to do.
Email them: "Quick favor - can you record a 30-second video showing the bug? Just go to loom.com (it's free), click 'Record', show me what's broken, and send me the link. This will help me fix it 10x faster. Thanks!"
95% of clients do it on the first try. No complaints. They get that showing you is easier than describing it.
If they don't have Loom, they can use any screen recorder. Or record their phone screen pointing at their computer. Or use the built-in screen recording on Mac/Windows. The tool doesn't matter. The point is seeing what's broken instead of reading a description of what's broken.
Real examples of why this matters:
E-commerce checkout bug. Text report: "Checkout not working." After 7 questions over 2 hours, you learn: client is in Northern Ireland, entered their address, clicked submit, got "Invalid shipping address" error even though address looks valid. Actual issue: checkout only accepted mainland UK addresses, needed to add Northern Ireland handling.
With a 30-second video, you would've seen this immediately. Watched them enter the NI address, click submit, see the error. Diagnosed and fixed in 10 minutes.
Form validation bug. Text report: "Form says email is invalid but it's not." You spend an hour trying to reproduce this with various email formats. Eventually figure out the client copy-pasted their email with a trailing space. One second of video would've shown this.
Mobile menu bug. Text report: "Mobile menu broken." You start asking: which device? Which browser? Which page? What exactly doesn't work? After 15 questions you learn: iPhone 12, Safari, menu button doesn't respond to tap, works fine on desktop. Actual issue: touch target too small on mobile. Would've been impossible to diagnose without seeing it. Video showed it immediately.
Where to put the videos:
The simple approach: keep using whatever you're using now (email, Trello, Asana, whatever) and just have clients paste Loom links. This works. You get the benefits of video bug reports without changing your whole workflow.
The better approach: use something with built-in video support so everything lives in one place. Lantern has Loom integration built in—clients paste the video link, you watch it inline, update status, add comments, everything's tracked together. Linear does this too if you're already using it (though it's $8 per user, which gets expensive with clients).
The key difference: without integration, your video is in Loom, your bug report is in Trello, status updates are in email, and the client asks about status in Slack. Everything's scattered. With integration, the video, bug details, status, and all communication live in one place. Client can check status themselves instead of asking you.
How to make this your default:
Week 1: Send the email to all your clients explaining the new process. "When you find a bug, send me a 30-second video showing what's happening."
Week 2: First few clients send videos. You fix bugs fast because you understand immediately. Clients are impressed.
Week 3: It's the new normal. Clients prefer it. You prefer it. Text bug reports feel like going back to the stone age.
After a month, you'll wonder how you ever managed without video bug reports. The time savings are real. The reduction in frustration is real. The faster fixes are real. We see this pattern constantly with teams using Lantern—once they try video bug reports, they never go back.
Common questions:
What if the bug can't be shown on video? Then describe it in text. Video isn't mandatory for every single bug. It's just better for 95% of them. For the occasional "intermittent performance issue that happens randomly," text is fine.
Do I need to watch every video in real time? No. Watch at 2x speed. Most bugs are obvious within 15 seconds. You're not watching a movie, you're diagnosing an issue.
What about privacy concerns? Loom lets you password-protect videos. Or use a tool like Lantern where videos stay within your workspace. Generally though, clients shouldn't be showing sensitive data in bug reports anyway.
Will this make me look unprofessional? Opposite. It shows you value efficiency and clear communication. Professional agencies use video. Amateur freelancers spend 2 days asking clarifying questions via email.
The bottom line:
Next time you get a vague bug report, reply: "Can you record a quick 30-second video showing me what's happening? Use loom.com - it's free and takes 2 seconds to set up. Will help me fix this way faster."
Client sends video. You fix bug immediately because you actually understood the problem. You never go back to text bug reports.
Built-in Loom integration. Stop copying video links into spreadsheets.