Scobleizer: Scoble has “long and boring” videos…
Duncan
· 2 years ago
Scoble I like your videos, interesting stories with interesting folks, but I will gripe a little bit time wise: I just dont always have the time to sit through them all. The shorter versions are a good idea for the many of us who are time poor.
rachel
· 2 years ago
come on Robert, you're a nice person, don't let misdirected criticism make you bitter.
also... it's not much a matter of video length but of substance or signal/noise ratio.
I'm pretty sure you can easily slice down *ANY* interview by half after editing.
Dawn D.
· 2 years ago
People listen to music while they work, why can't they listen to your videos? That's what I do. I watch for a couple of minutes to get in my head who is talking, then I put it in the background and work on something else. When you get to a demo part, I start paying more attention again.
I like your "long and boring" videos.
The Foo
· 2 years ago
Great interview.
Tried to embed the code on my tumblr (http://thefoologs.tumblr.com/) and it shows Mark Johnson's interview of Seagate Vice President of Global Marketing. You might want to check the emded code out as it is not pointing to the right podcast.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
The Foo: there's a bug in the player. Click on the PlayList first and go to the right video. Then the embed code will be good.
The Foo
· 2 years ago
@Robert: Thanks. It works now. Once again, great stuff - I think the most interesting one you've done yet.
Mark
· 2 years ago
I think the Scobleshow should be treated like a menu. You're not going to have everything, but there's usually a few things that are appetising. Rocky's short versions do help to filter that.
Just think how you described your method of filtering your Reader list. You can't do that easily with video, so how would you get through the same quantity of RSS feeds if they were video based.
As feedback to Rocky, I found the short version of the Randi Zuckerberg interview didn't do her justice. In the short version it sounded like she was just giving the party line on the buzzwords and didn't really know what was going on. In the longer interview she came across as thoughtful and intelligent.
I guess overall that's a vote for long videos, but make sure there's an easy entry point to skim the content.
bythebayou
· 2 years ago
I don't think the issue is that a camera that refocuses after taking pictures isn't interesting, it's that taking 54 minutes of video to discuss it isn't.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
bythebayou: it's pretty clear you haven't even started to watch the video if you think that's all that happens here. Why don't you try to watch it before calling my videos boring? I don't go over to your workplace and say your work is boring. Why do it to me without even looking at my work first?
Diego
· 2 years ago
"But if you find a camera that can refocus AFTER you take an image boring then I really don’t want to know you."
You're so shallow when it comes to reasons for choosing friends, Robert. :)
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Diego: well, keep in mind, I add friends to Facebook for a lot less than THAT! :-)
Seni Thomas
· 2 years ago
Scoble,
The content is great, but I wish the podtech video player had inline bookmarks so I can skip around to areas I'm interested in. Perhaps I'm just another multitasking, impatient 22 year old, but 5-10min is the max I can watch a vid for online. Also you should consider a player like www.crowdabout.us that has inline audio, video, and text commenting.
Seni
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Semi: you can download any of my videos in MP4 format and then you can play them on your favorite player.
Not to put my head in the lion’s mouth but I have to get on board with the “videos are too long” crowd. I think what Rachel said is basically where I stand, ANY interview can be sliced down. I’m sure, without a doubt, that 95% of the people on 60 minutes could fill an hour but I wouldn’t watch if they did because I don’t have 4 hours to devote to 60 minutes.
That, to me, is the crux of the argument. I’m not saying your videos are bad I’m simply saying that I (and I think most people) don’t have time to watch them. Maybe I’m wrong, I remember you doing little “mini-surveys” back at Channel 9 asking people what they liked best and I’m assuming “long” won so maybe that is where the audience is. All I can say is back when you did short videos I used to watch every single one and since you’ve gone to this long format I’ve maybe seen 10 or 12 total.
And I’m someone who goes out of his way to try to make the time. But try to see it from the perspective of your customers here. If you’re doing an interview that a person thinks might be interesting they’ll almost certainly watch it if its only 20 minutes and almost certainly not if its over an hour.
Also, to answer Dawn D.: because some of us actually have jobs where we (a) have to concentrate a lot of the time or (b) have meetings the majority of the time (or at least far more than we’d ever want to have).
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Tom: most of my videos lately are running less than 30 minutes. When the topic deserves it I go longer. For instance, this one, which is with the top graphic researcher in the world.
Compare not to 60 Minutes but to something like Charlie Rose or in the Actor's Studio.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Tom: and, again, today's video is available in a five-minute edited version. Did you watch that?
As to Microsoft: we got to 4.3 million unique users and our videos were far worse back then (not as good camera equipment, not as interesting people, not as well edited, not as sharp resolution).
Tom
· 2 years ago
I did watch the 5 minute version but to be honest…and yes I know how silly this sounds in context…it felt a little too short to me.
I guess to me it seems like 22 minutes is the golden number. That’s the same length as your average TV show. I would devote time 3 times a week to watch the Scoble TV Show I just don’t have time to watch several Scoble movies.
But yes, if you can afford to produce shorter versions and keep the longer, uncut versions available I’d think that would be ideal.
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Tom: in America the average TV show is an hour, with about 14 minutes of advertising. So, that's more than 45 minutes.
If you're interested in the topic you'll (aggregate you, not you in particular) watch a long-ass video on it. I have the stats to prove this.
We'll keep playing with the format.
Roy Blumenthal
· 2 years ago
Hiya Robert...
My 'hassle' with the long format ISN'T actually the time it takes! It's the amount of bandwidth consumed.
I live in South Africa, where we have monopolistic bandwidth pricing policies. And things come in various packages.
A typical one is the 3G wireless 1gig package. This costs a certain amount a month. Then you hit your cap. And then you pay through your eyeballs for every meg over that gig.
So I'm pretty conservative about the amount of downloading I do. Simply cos it costs a fortune.
Many of the Scoble Show vids weigh in at around 200 megs. That's five Scoble Show vids to eat up an entire 1gig bundle for the entire month.
I wanna watch MUCH more of your vids. But the bandwidth precludes that. So I end up only watching small bits of some, and the odd full-length one here and there if I have bandwidth left over at the end of the month.
I would appeal to you to make a much lower resolution file available. That would make it easier for 'emerging world' surfers to get the benefit of the interviews.
Thanks for your incredibly rich sharing, Robert. You cook. Deluxe.
Blue skies love Roy
Frederic
· 2 years ago
Robert - I sure have given you grieve over the long videos (and I am sorry for having propagated my share of false Podtech rumors as well), but it's simply very difficult to commit such a long time to a video which might or might not be interesting.
I love having these short clips, because they allow me to decide if this video would be interesting enough for me.
Needless to say, this was a cool video, so I will actually make some time to watch the rest. Without the edited version, I would have never done that.
Roy Blumenthal
· 2 years ago
Dude...
I've just watched the 5 minute version of this. And I don't give a damn HOW MUCH it costs me in extra bandwidth...
I'm downloading the full version. This is an honest to goodness mindduck!!!! Wild!
Great work.
Thanks.
Blue skies love Roy
Jeremy Toeman
· 2 years ago
Robert, I don't think it's a good idea to compare against TV shows. 22 minute long comedies and 44 minute long dramas are entirely different than "newsreel" content, where interviews typically lie. If you consider a show like 60 minutes, no segment is more than about 8 minutes long, and these are highly edited, with multiple camera angles and b-roll.
I have nothing against the content you generate, but I'd suggest two things: 1) Make edited versions of everything. Take a 40 minute video, turn it into 6 mins. Take 20 minutes, make it 4. Etc. Then let me choose. I know you've done this on some occasion, but to really improve the PodTech brand, I think this is a must-do activity. 2) Give us more detailed synopses. "Interview with Eric Norlin" gets me interested because I think he's an interesting guy. Providing me with a "major topic" as well as a list of the general areas of discussion or demos would help even more, so I can decide if this is new content that I'm interested in, or it's something I'm probably already familiar with.
Hope that's helpful.
Still waiting on that dinner. ;) -jt
Robert Scoble
· 2 years ago
Jeremy: let's do dinner next week or the week after that.
The closest comparison on TV is to Charlie Rose. He has two cameras in a studio, which makes things a bit more controlled than me (and higher cost to produce). But for the most part he has hour-long conversations (or three 20-minute ones) that aren't very scripted, if at all.
I bias first toward non-edited versions because I want a passionate audience first. A passionate/engaged/specific audience is most important to my sponsor.
Editing actually doesn't increase the passion of the audience. It just increases the size and brings in a non-passionate audience.
Like I said, if you really care about photography you'll watch that entire video. If you don't care about photography, it doesn't matter how short I make the video or how slick we edit it -- you won't watch.
I learned this at Microsoft where my unedited videos got a TON more traffic than the studio's slickly edited videos.
Oh, one other advantage? It gets me interviews. I've had CEO after CEO tell me that one of the reasons they come on my show is that they know I won't cut up their words and make them sound stupid or out of context.
G
· 2 years ago
Is it a little arrogant to think that you're the only interviewer whose brilliant sit-downs require absolutely no editing?
Charlie Rose rarely has hour-long interviews, and even those are interspersed with clips and edited.
Larry King takes questions from the viewing audience to break up the monotony.
James Lipton does both of the above.
None of these people laugh uproariously at each and every one of their own questions or statements.
You have a ways to go before you can start comparing yourself to these guys.
emma
· 2 years ago
still boring mate. just is, sorry.
Mat
· 2 years ago
Robert,
Some time ago you published a video accompanied by a text chronology of the major discussion topics. In my opinion this is an absolute necessity to accompany any information-dense video, no matter what the length. I'm sure this is time-intensive to create, but really, it would be worth it for your audience.
Let me, the user, chose what chunks of the whole I want to consume.
Ted
· 2 years ago
I like the longer unedited videos. So many times the message is changed after editing. News it now news when it is edited... Keep it raw.
patrickjordan
· 2 years ago
I like the videos a lot, even some of the longer ones. I can't recall how long it was, but loved the one with the guy who created SendMail a million years ago. I might not have time to watch three of them per week, but always enjoy them when I do watch, and I think the unedited style is refreshing and fun - phones ringing in the middle of interview etc. - it's good stuff.
Mark McLaren
· 2 years ago
Robert, I vote for unedited videos.
"I won’t cut up their words and make them sound stupid or out of context" -- this is important.
You are creating interesting content for a passionate audience - as you note - without lots of processing or slickness. That's what successful new media is about.
I started watching the video above thinking it was the 5 minute version - figuring I could spare 5 minutes but not 54 - and I got so into it I had watched 10 minutes before it even occurred to me that I was watching the full length.
It's also cool that you are bringing the work of an academic researcher to a wider audience via the Web. Since I have never picked up a specialized photography magazine in my life, much less an academic journal of photography, I probably would never have been exposed to Prof Levoy's work. But it's fascinating, and I have the Scoble Show to thank for it.
Rocky Barbanica
· 2 years ago
Just goes to show that you cannot, EVER, please everyone. Pay attention to your target audience and you'll do just fine- as we are. Some problems arise in trying to edit Scoble Show content (not necessarily this one)- in that it takes some guests a LONG time to get a point across. Editing that to a short version would come out strobed. Annoying. Sure, every episode can be edited. But that's not my directive right now. I hear each and every one of you and I feel ya. Thank you for the feedback- It all helps in the long run. Peace!
Rocky-
David Jacobs
· 2 years ago
Your videos are long and boring for the most part. That's not to say the topics are boring, but I think you would benefit from tightening things up. Having real people present is very "new media" and there are benefits to that, but there is also something to be said for people who know how to present well. Just because it's new media and more unscripted doesn't mean it can't be well produced.
Gidget
· 2 years ago
What's interesting about this dialogue is that the clear majority keep saying, we are interested, but edit down, tighten up, and you just say no, I'm a stubborn man, I will do it my way. Isn't that a little odd after all your dialogue about naked conversations and crowdsourcing and the social graph and insert buzzword here?
Mark McLaren
· 2 years ago
David Jacobs makes a good point about "something to be said for people who know how to present well". What's most important is reaching the desired audience. Conveying the significance of Facebook - or whatever - to a group of people that rarely use the Internet is going to require some careful planning and production time to be effective. But if Scobleizer can do an interview with new VP of marketing Chamath Palihapitiya while he is eating a chicken wrap or playing foosball, many in Scobelizer's core audience will probably watch it from beginning to end - with or without editing - and tell a friend.
Christopher Coulter
· 2 years ago
The shorter versions are just random bits clipped together, doesn't always mesh (read: almost never). Should ask the same few questions (script it out), and have the interviewee break it down (practice), 2-3 minutes for an explanation, and 2-3 minutes for a demo, all to create a workable synthesis. If the interviewee can't do elevator pitches and quick demos, he/she doesn't deserve to be in front of a camera.
Long (and boring) videos, pointing the camera at anything that moves, with belly laughs, random banter and guests dribbling on and on, doesn't play in the mass market -- on Channel 9 you could get away with it more, as people had a vested interest. Regular broadcasters have a hard enough time getting people to stick around for even 30 minutes, and fight for it every day, with most losing big.
Not that this will ever sink in...and not like it's my place anymore, but a random opinion for what it's worth.
in that it takes some guests a LONG time to get a point across
Then DON'T put them on camera, or force them to shorten it, and that's an lame excuse, or rather the interviewers fault. Good production/planning, good scripts, are 80% of good editing, imho. Editors aren't miracle workers, GIGO...
Kev Moore
· 2 years ago
And here lies the root of the problem that will eventually lead to the demise of wetsren civilisation; The short attention span. It has been cultivated by comic books, IPODS and MTV. It is quite possible that the average adult born within the last thirty years is clinically unable to maintain interest in anything that approaches an hour in length. I once mentioned to a colleague that I was a voracious reader of books, and he told me he could only handle magazines, and I think that was because they had a lot of pictures in them. Do not pander to this blinkered majority, continue to produce epic stimulii for the lengthily attentive.
Kev Moore
· 2 years ago
ahem...or even western civilisation...was that a freudian slip?
Garrett
· 2 years ago
"Compare not to 60 Minutes but to something like Charlie Rose or in the Actor’s Studio."
Given the type of questions, I was thinking more along the lines of Kevin Trudeau, Larry King, or Billy Mays.
Chris
· 2 years ago
This is an excellent video and deserves the length. For me, the semi unstructured nature in questioning and ad-hoc answer tangents reveal additional depth, feeling and content; details that otherwise would not have been captured. We also see passion, excitement and discomfort which allowed me to relate to Mark and his work. When I'm short on time, I can use fast playback in Window Media player. You can quickly become accustomed to watching at 2 or 3 times the original speed without loss of context. Actually I now find I prefer a faster speed to the point where normal speed feels too slow. Scoble sounds more interesting at high speed too ...
Matthew
· 2 years ago
Proper editing shows understanding of the medium, and respect for your audience. "Long and boring videos" is another way of saying people don't think your a very good videographer. But it gets you interviews, so who cares.
Ron
· 2 years ago
"I’ve had CEO after CEO tell me that one of the reasons they come on my show is that they know I won’t cut up their words and make them sound stupid or out of context."
Well of course they do. The more camera time for them the better. But generally if an interview is edited such that things are taken out of context or the person looks stupid, the interviewer has an agenda or he has a lousy editor. A good editor would ensure the subject's message is coming across as intended; or is edited to fit the agenda.
Jim
· 2 years ago
The ironic thing is that rather than just give us the video you had to talk about the length and such. Rather than commenting on the interesting elements about the video this comment section has turned into another debate about video length which really detracts from the good content in the video.
Rocky Barbanica
· 2 years ago
@Jim - AMEN!
bobboynton
· 2 years ago
I suppose I am too late to get into this conversation. But -- why don't you use veotag or something like that to make it possible for viewers to skip to the parts of the video that interests them. Veotag is extremely easy to use, i.e., very modest additional time for you.
It would give your viewers the best of both worlds. When they wanted to see the entire video they could do that. When they were in a hurry or were only interested in a segment they could do that. It would obviously be a step toward making your viewers happier -- fewer complaints about being too long. It will not do anything about 'boring.'
Dan
· 2 years ago
Lost in all the long-video format debate is that the content of this particular video is incredible. That microlens array camera demonstration literally made my jaw drop open. That is some incredible technology.
shel israel
· 2 years ago
I think it would be brilliant to have regular 5 minute versions of your longer work--sort of a Viewer's Digest. It would increase your viewership and would tell me if I wanted to see the 54-minute version.
Chris
· 2 years ago
I personally like the long video format with the semi-unstructured questioning. Following the stream of consciousness is far more interesting than something that’s edited or scripted. We get a chance to really see what drives this individual, his passions, aspirations and issues. It’s raw. Another tip if time is short is to play the video at 2x normal speed. It may seem strange but speeding the video up works really well, I frequently use Window Media Player to do this. Most people generally speak too slowly to begin with. Scoble actually sounds interesting at faster speed :)
Simon Brocklehurst
· 2 years ago
Really great video, Robert. More on tech-related research going on in top university labs, please.
All Comments
I like your videos, interesting stories with interesting folks, but I will gripe a little bit time wise: I just dont always have the time to sit through them all. The shorter versions are a good idea for the many of us who are time poor.
also... it's not much a matter of video length but of substance or signal/noise ratio.
I'm pretty sure you can easily slice down *ANY* interview by half after editing.
I like your "long and boring" videos.
Tried to embed the code on my tumblr (http://thefoologs.tumblr.com/) and it shows Mark Johnson's interview of Seagate Vice President of Global Marketing. You might want to check the emded code out as it is not pointing to the right podcast.
Just think how you described your method of filtering your Reader list. You can't do that easily with video, so how would you get through the same quantity of RSS feeds if they were video based.
As feedback to Rocky, I found the short version of the Randi Zuckerberg interview didn't do her justice. In the short version it sounded like she was just giving the party line on the buzzwords and didn't really know what was going on. In the longer interview she came across as thoughtful and intelligent.
I guess overall that's a vote for long videos, but make sure there's an easy entry point to skim the content.
You're so shallow when it comes to reasons for choosing friends, Robert. :)
The content is great, but I wish the podtech video player had inline bookmarks so I can skip around to areas I'm interested in. Perhaps I'm just another multitasking, impatient 22 year old, but 5-10min is the max I can watch a vid for online. Also you should consider a player like www.crowdabout.us that has inline audio, video, and text commenting.
Seni
Click over here: http://www.podtech.net/scobleshow/technology/16...
Then look for the "download" links.
That, to me, is the crux of the argument. I’m not saying your videos are bad I’m simply saying that I (and I think most people) don’t have time to watch them. Maybe I’m wrong, I remember you doing little “mini-surveys” back at Channel 9 asking people what they liked best and I’m assuming “long” won so maybe that is where the audience is. All I can say is back when you did short videos I used to watch every single one and since you’ve gone to this long format I’ve maybe seen 10 or 12 total.
And I’m someone who goes out of his way to try to make the time. But try to see it from the perspective of your customers here. If you’re doing an interview that a person thinks might be interesting they’ll almost certainly watch it if its only 20 minutes and almost certainly not if its over an hour.
Also, to answer Dawn D.: because some of us actually have jobs where we (a) have to concentrate a lot of the time or (b) have meetings the majority of the time (or at least far more than we’d ever want to have).
Compare not to 60 Minutes but to something like Charlie Rose or in the Actor's Studio.
As to Microsoft: we got to 4.3 million unique users and our videos were far worse back then (not as good camera equipment, not as interesting people, not as well edited, not as sharp resolution).
I guess to me it seems like 22 minutes is the golden number. That’s the same length as your average TV show. I would devote time 3 times a week to watch the Scoble TV Show I just don’t have time to watch several Scoble movies.
But yes, if you can afford to produce shorter versions and keep the longer, uncut versions available I’d think that would be ideal.
If you're interested in the topic you'll (aggregate you, not you in particular) watch a long-ass video on it. I have the stats to prove this.
We'll keep playing with the format.
My 'hassle' with the long format ISN'T actually the time it takes! It's the amount of bandwidth consumed.
I live in South Africa, where we have monopolistic bandwidth pricing policies. And things come in various packages.
A typical one is the 3G wireless 1gig package. This costs a certain amount a month. Then you hit your cap. And then you pay through your eyeballs for every meg over that gig.
So I'm pretty conservative about the amount of downloading I do. Simply cos it costs a fortune.
Many of the Scoble Show vids weigh in at around 200 megs. That's five Scoble Show vids to eat up an entire 1gig bundle for the entire month.
I wanna watch MUCH more of your vids. But the bandwidth precludes that. So I end up only watching small bits of some, and the odd full-length one here and there if I have bandwidth left over at the end of the month.
I would appeal to you to make a much lower resolution file available. That would make it easier for 'emerging world' surfers to get the benefit of the interviews.
Thanks for your incredibly rich sharing, Robert. You cook. Deluxe.
Blue skies
love
Roy
I love having these short clips, because they allow me to decide if this video would be interesting enough for me.
Needless to say, this was a cool video, so I will actually make some time to watch the rest. Without the edited version, I would have never done that.
I've just watched the 5 minute version of this. And I don't give a damn HOW MUCH it costs me in extra bandwidth...
I'm downloading the full version. This is an honest to goodness mindduck!!!! Wild!
Great work.
Thanks.
Blue skies
love
Roy
I don't think it's a good idea to compare against TV shows. 22 minute long comedies and 44 minute long dramas are entirely different than "newsreel" content, where interviews typically lie. If you consider a show like 60 minutes, no segment is more than about 8 minutes long, and these are highly edited, with multiple camera angles and b-roll.
I have nothing against the content you generate, but I'd suggest two things:
1) Make edited versions of everything. Take a 40 minute video, turn it into 6 mins. Take 20 minutes, make it 4. Etc. Then let me choose. I know you've done this on some occasion, but to really improve the PodTech brand, I think this is a must-do activity.
2) Give us more detailed synopses. "Interview with Eric Norlin" gets me interested because I think he's an interesting guy. Providing me with a "major topic" as well as a list of the general areas of discussion or demos would help even more, so I can decide if this is new content that I'm interested in, or it's something I'm probably already familiar with.
Hope that's helpful.
Still waiting on that dinner. ;)
-jt
The closest comparison on TV is to Charlie Rose. He has two cameras in a studio, which makes things a bit more controlled than me (and higher cost to produce). But for the most part he has hour-long conversations (or three 20-minute ones) that aren't very scripted, if at all.
I bias first toward non-edited versions because I want a passionate audience first. A passionate/engaged/specific audience is most important to my sponsor.
Editing actually doesn't increase the passion of the audience. It just increases the size and brings in a non-passionate audience.
Like I said, if you really care about photography you'll watch that entire video. If you don't care about photography, it doesn't matter how short I make the video or how slick we edit it -- you won't watch.
I learned this at Microsoft where my unedited videos got a TON more traffic than the studio's slickly edited videos.
Oh, one other advantage? It gets me interviews. I've had CEO after CEO tell me that one of the reasons they come on my show is that they know I won't cut up their words and make them sound stupid or out of context.
Charlie Rose rarely has hour-long interviews, and even those are interspersed with clips and edited.
Larry King takes questions from the viewing audience to break up the monotony.
James Lipton does both of the above.
None of these people laugh uproariously at each and every one of their own questions or statements.
You have a ways to go before you can start comparing yourself to these guys.
Some time ago you published a video accompanied by a text chronology of the major discussion topics. In my opinion this is an absolute necessity to accompany any information-dense video, no matter what the length. I'm sure this is time-intensive to create, but really, it would be worth it for your audience.
Let me, the user, chose what chunks of the whole I want to consume.
I might not have time to watch three of them per week, but always enjoy them when I do watch, and I think the unedited style is refreshing and fun - phones ringing in the middle of interview etc. - it's good stuff.
I vote for unedited videos.
"I won’t cut up their words and make them sound stupid or out of context" -- this is important.
You are creating interesting content for a passionate audience - as you note - without lots of processing or slickness. That's what successful new media is about.
I started watching the video above thinking it was the 5 minute version - figuring I could spare 5 minutes but not 54 - and I got so into it I had watched 10 minutes before it even occurred to me that I was watching the full length.
It's also cool that you are bringing the work of an academic researcher to a wider audience via the Web. Since I have never picked up a specialized photography magazine in my life, much less an academic journal of photography, I probably would never have been exposed to Prof Levoy's work. But it's fascinating, and I have the Scoble Show to thank for it.
Rocky-
Long (and boring) videos, pointing the camera at anything that moves, with belly laughs, random banter and guests dribbling on and on, doesn't play in the mass market -- on Channel 9 you could get away with it more, as people had a vested interest. Regular broadcasters have a hard enough time getting people to stick around for even 30 minutes, and fight for it every day, with most losing big.
Not that this will ever sink in...and not like it's my place anymore, but a random opinion for what it's worth.
in that it takes some guests a LONG time to get a point across
Then DON'T put them on camera, or force them to shorten it, and that's an lame excuse, or rather the interviewers fault. Good production/planning, good scripts, are 80% of good editing, imho. Editors aren't miracle workers, GIGO...
Given the type of questions, I was thinking more along the lines of Kevin Trudeau, Larry King, or Billy Mays.
When I'm short on time, I can use fast playback in Window Media player. You can quickly become accustomed to watching at 2 or 3 times the original speed without loss of context. Actually I now find I prefer a faster speed to the point where normal speed feels too slow. Scoble sounds more interesting at high speed too ...
Well of course they do. The more camera time for them the better. But generally if an interview is edited such that things are taken out of context or the person looks stupid, the interviewer has an agenda or he has a lousy editor. A good editor would ensure the subject's message is coming across as intended; or is edited to fit the agenda.
It would give your viewers the best of both worlds. When they wanted to see the entire video they could do that. When they were in a hurry or were only interested in a segment they could do that. It would obviously be a step toward making your viewers happier -- fewer complaints about being too long. It will not do anything about 'boring.'
Another tip if time is short is to play the video at 2x normal speed. It may seem strange but speeding the video up works really well, I frequently use Window Media Player to do this. Most people generally speak too slowly to begin with. Scoble actually sounds interesting at faster speed :)