-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2009/01/13/is-text-really-king-over-video-compare-the-results/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/fastcompany.tv...
video may reach more people, but which people?
Keep putting out the great content!
Troy Malone
You kinda miss the point. The real point is that, as a blogger, you're trying to reach *people* even more than search engines. People have different preferences for accessing information -- some visually, some textually, some kinestheticly, some audially. (I'm not sure how to spell the last two there -- apologies.)
If you want to market yourself big, you need to hit as many access preferences as possible. Sure, search is big, but not as big as individual connection.
Best,
~ Paul
Video's just a lot more fun to do.
I tend to find videos annoying because I get most of my news on my iPhone when I'm commuting on the bus, waiting in line for coffee, or catching a quick break between meetings. If I'm using my computer, I'm probably listening to music, and don't want to have to pause iTunes.
I rarely have several minutes of undivided attention to give over to a video. Text allows me to rapidly triage information, whereas video gives me little commensurate ability.
Video certainly tells a more compelling story, but it just isn't as easy for most busy people to consume. Yet.
Robert you're right about using every tool available. In reality this debate is pointless as text and video are really complementary. If video could be king on its own wouldn't you have done this post on video at Seesmic or 12s??
I watched the videos I mentioned, but would have preferred to see Tim and Matt write-up themselves what they thought and put on their websites.
Having said that, and in keeping with Kevin Kelly's ruminations on "screen fluency", there will always be a sense of "added value" with the addition or inclusion of video content. Part of placing this content in context is making sure it isn't a pant load of superfluous material and instead makes that jump to the relevant portion quickly - or consists "only" of the relevant portion.
Screen fluency exists not just for the "readers" but also for the creators. No what to say and how to say it.
Context.
Static content like text an images have this great properties of scanability und skimmability. I read some text, I look at some images and I can decide in seconds, if that content is worth it to explore further, to invest time. In this instant the most video players aren't loaded. Worse, in video I'm imprisoned in somebody elses timeline and in his exploring and all I can do is watching bored along because I cannot scan to the next interesting piece – I have no clue where it could be. I don't even have a clue that there could be something interesting.
I've watched maybe 5 of your videos. Maybe 10 minutes of each, on in two thirds. Every time I command-W-t the tab because I couldn't see a reason of investing my time and attention. I simply had no clues. I've never had this problem with text or the combination of text and images (Contrained to documentary or reporting styles. Art like movies, TV series and literature have other ways to capture me)
Even if you only skim the text, it's highly valuable to see a minute or two of video, to get a sense of who's talking. There's no such thing as neutral and personality matters when evaluating opinions.
The Long Now talks on Fora.tv all have transcripts. Unfortunately they're in .pdf and you have to click the Downloads tab to even find them. For example:
http://fora.tv/2008/08/08/Daniel_Suarez_Daemon_...
I do subscribe to one podcast now (Tack Sharp) - I'll probably try watching some of the fast-company content some day, but I haven't yet. Meanwhile, I'm following Twitter and 100-200 posts via RSS each day - probably a thousand text posts for every video clip I watch. Video just doesn't come close to the convenience of text or pictures for me: can an interview really offer anything significant that a transcript doesn't? For some product demos, possibly, but not an interview.
I would tend to agree with Robert that video CAN be very successful (not least of all because Google favors its own YouTube property for SEO, etc.), but it has to be done RIGHT to work well. This introduces an additional barrier that is less pronounced for text.
Check out this graph I just saw on AlleyInsider.com the other day:
http://loosebusinessdata.tumblr.com/post/698749...
Shows how quickly audience drops off for videos (basically of all types, even though their point was about How-To videos). The reason besides basic relevance is likely that the content/audio/etc. in the video is not delivered FAST enough. Our brains are trained to expect such rapid-fire, dense editing at this point, that if video falls below a certain threshold it is perceived as unbearably boring. So we stop watching, unless there is another factor that has us pay attention (like having a specific personal interest in what is shown, such as video of a family outing).
I would say that in part Chris Pirillo's and Gary V's success comes from being high-energy, fast-talking people that can keep the attention due to what Gary calls the "Hoopla Factor". Video + Speed = Win...
The problem is that unless you are doing interviews like Robert (in which case he is basically held hostage by the speed of output of the interviewee) where the content basically flows/develops somewhat naturally from the conversation, almost no one is basically good enough at talking from the hip to keep a good, dense, and fast flow of ideas and attention-keeping content going.
Which is where scripting, teleprompters (including totally rigged ones like text on cardboard taped near the camera :), and fast, animated delivery comes into play. You really don't have to be very brilliant to do this, few people are (basically everyone on TV, all actors, etc. work from scripts...). You can find a good example of what is possible at
www.stomperf5.com
(you may have to opt in to view this - easy to unsubscribe later, this is NOT an affiliate link and I am not specifically endorsing this, though there is some useful free marketing advice here)
I would say that this is the minimum speed to deliver content, that is to say, a relatively fast pace. Notice that Andy Jenkins, the guy in the video, is working from a well developed script with some pretty sophisticated sales copy woven into the seemingly casual delivery. But the basic fact remains that you want to talk fast, or else you're putting your audience to sleep.
It's a lot easier to get me to skim a few paragraphs that might contain something of interest than to have me watch a 2 minute video that quite possibly has nothing in it that is of the slightest interest to me.
Text is a great communication tool and trumps video in a lot of ways, but there's no way you can make a blanket statement that text kills video online. Text has done better because the barriers have been higher. As costs come down on the technology to produce video, as broadband improves and as people get more comfortable with the medium we'll see nothing but more and more video content and consumption and it will outpace text for years to come.
Saying text kills video is simply not accurate.
Scoble said: "You take 1,000 words to explain to me what the next game from EA looks like. I’ll do it in a minute or two of video."
Firstly, a picture is worth 1,000 words, and that only takes a millisecond to view.
But as others keep saying, you can take in text a lot faster and more flexibly than video, so those 1,00 words can be read in a a minute.
And also of course, there's no waiting for text to stream, or interruptions like streaming video.
It really comes down to what someone else said, I have to make the time to stop and watch video. so you really have to have a need to watch a video, much more than a want. Which I do do sometimes - eg just today I watched TUAW's interview with Michael Simmons (of Cultured Code's Things todo manager), but that was because I'm writing a review of Things.
I guess when your online videos are as easy to skim as skimming is in iMovie, then I might find I'd watch, although the problem with knowing what's being said.
In the end, video's role is still complementary. It adds to a story.
Being that there are so many mediums with which to communicate your message, do you think that if you're much better at text than video, does cutting video damage your brand or not?
I guess what I'm saying is, if you rock one medium and suck at another in the social networking community, does anyone care?
I think of people getting burned who try to medium jump like when Shaq put out a rap record (apples and oranges I know, but just throwing that out there)
Thanks.
-M
In fact, it is a lot easier to rank with video content QUICKLY if you know what you are doing in terms of SEO (partly because Google for obvious reasons favors its own video property, YouTube...). Go check out TrafficGeyser.com, those guys are going great guns over there.
You might lose ranking again fairly quickly as well, like a few days or weeks (have to throw a good bit of Social Bookmarking at it to make it stick longer), but then it's easy to just re-release the same video with slightly tweaked text parameters.
Also, as was said further up, video views is still growing strongly, and YouTube searches have already overtaken Yahoo to become the #2 "search engine" in the U.S. So this is powerful stuff, especially SEO wise.
BTW, the reason why I have no problem giving away these strategies is that 1) 95%+ of people don't take action, and 2) the fear/confidence barrier with video content creation will keep most people over say 30 out for a good long while, while the kids that are eminently comfortable with it are too young to care about the marketing aspects of their skill...
That and the fact that most people regardless of age don't know what it takes to create compelling video content using SPEED as I explained further up.
I'm not sure Steve Martin was referring to SEO when he said this, but it fits like a glove:
"Talking about music is like dancing about architecture".
It sucks to make a video game trailer in text, just as it would suck writing a scientific thesis as 3 minute pop song.