Steve Rubel postulates that text is a lot better than video on the web.
Oh, really? Well, explain this graph from Compete.com that compares fastcompany.tv (my video blog) to techmeme (which only displays text and penalizes videos).
Truth is that if you want to build an audience on the web you must use EVERY tool available.
And I’m not taking that advice yet. Yesterday I joined Digg (I never used it much until yesterday). Tomorrow, YouTube (SEO’s tell me that doing YouTube well helps your search engine ranking a lot — Chris Pirillo has been playing YouTube like a fiddle and he’s rocking and rolling everywhere).
He’s right. Text is easier to consume. Easier to search. All that stuff. But here, let’s try something. 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. The video will beat your blog every time. Every time!
Text may be king, like Rubel says, but video is godly. My traffic curves prove that.
And we won’t even get into how Gary Vaynerchuk is using Wine Library TV — there is no way he would be even 1/100th as successful by doing just a text blog. Speaking of Gary, Troy Malone videoed our presentation we gave at CES last week about how to build a successful blog in a bad economy. Thanks for doing that! Lots of people said it was really great.
Scobleizer 
The problem with graphs is that there’s always another one
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/fastcompany.tv+techmeme.com+sethgodin.typepad.com/
video may reach more people, but which people?
LikeLike
The problem with graphs is that there’s always another one
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/fastcompany.tv+techmeme.com+sethgodin.typepad.com/
video may reach more people, but which people?
LikeLike
Wow! Thanks Robert. That session was a great one to video. It is really interesting to me how different you and Gary are, but how successful you both have been at building an audience. I think I found the common denominator though. You both are just good guys. You are approachable, fun to be around and smart. That’s obviously the key to success in my eyes!
Keep putting out the great content!
Troy Malone
LikeLike
Wow! Thanks Robert. That session was a great one to video. It is really interesting to me how different you and Gary are, but how successful you both have been at building an audience. I think I found the common denominator though. You both are just good guys. You are approachable, fun to be around and smart. That’s obviously the key to success in my eyes!
Keep putting out the great content!
Troy Malone
LikeLike
I don’t understand why Gary V is such a great example all the time. I’ll be impressed when there’s five others just like him. If there are please say so.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why Gary V is such a great example all the time. I’ll be impressed when there’s five others just like him. If there are please say so.
LikeLike
I think video has more potential, but it’s harder to do right, which is why everyone sticks with text. You’re right though, those that can use every tool available, including video, will be king.
LikeLike
I think video has more potential, but it’s harder to do right, which is why everyone sticks with text. You’re right though, those that can use every tool available, including video, will be king.
LikeLike
Robert,
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
LikeLike
Robert,
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
LikeLike
I have to click the play button the video. I will make this decision based on … Guess what?
LikeLike
I have to click the play button the video. I will make this decision based on … Guess what?
LikeLike
no FB Connect?
LikeLike
no FB Connect?
LikeLike
It depends who’s doing the producing. There are many great writers who are utterly dull in person and plenty of people into video who couldn’t write their own names (YouTube is awash with them).
Video’s just a lot more fun to do.
LikeLike
It depends who’s doing the producing. There are many great writers who are utterly dull in person and plenty of people into video who couldn’t write their own names (YouTube is awash with them).
Video’s just a lot more fun to do.
LikeLike
Wait, what am I missing here? A website built singlehandedly by one guy has more traffic than a video site built with the backing and resources of a magazine that appears on newsstands across the country. What are you trying to say, Scoble?
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.
LikeLike
Wait, what am I missing here? A website built singlehandedly by one guy has more traffic than a video site built with the backing and resources of a magazine that appears on newsstands across the country. What are you trying to say, Scoble?
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.
LikeLike
If every video was three minutes long, I might go along with that. But when your useful bit of information is at the 17-minute mark, I turned you off ten minutes ago (at least). There’s no Ctrl-F for video.
LikeLike
If every video was three minutes long, I might go along with that. But when your useful bit of information is at the 17-minute mark, I turned you off ten minutes ago (at least). There’s no Ctrl-F for video.
LikeLike
I figured, but I couldn’t believe how fast my PR jumped once I added a couple videos. YouTube is King.
LikeLike
I echo @Aaron’s sentiments completely. Watching a video takes more effort (or at least I think it does) because I have to physically stop and concentrate on the content–taking time out from other activities–for a specific period of time (the length of the video).
Video certainly tells a more compelling story, but it just isn’t as easy for most busy people to consume. Yet.
LikeLike
I echo @Aaron’s sentiments completely. Watching a video takes more effort (or at least I think it does) because I have to physically stop and concentrate on the content–taking time out from other activities–for a specific period of time (the length of the video).
Video certainly tells a more compelling story, but it just isn’t as easy for most busy people to consume. Yet.
LikeLike
I figured, but I couldn’t believe how fast my PR jumped once I added a couple videos. YouTube is King.
LikeLike
Doesn’t context matter? Text and Video each have their areas where they’re more suitable for consumption. Your games example is perfect but when it comes to something like opinion representation text may be better. Most importantly text allows for increased and quicker consumption, this is not necessarily possible with video.
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??
LikeLike
Doesn’t context matter? Text and Video each have their areas where they’re more suitable for consumption. Your games example is perfect but when it comes to something like opinion representation text may be better. Most importantly text allows for increased and quicker consumption, this is not necessarily possible with video.
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??
LikeLike
I think you have the traffic for a couple of reasons. One, you are already well established as a blogger, have been for a long time, and got established by writing tons of good, short, interesting articles. The other reason, in my view, for the video traffic is the interviewees, like Tim O’Reilly and Matt Mullenweg. Do people care what you have to say in those videos. I would be surprised if so. I wouldn’t expect them to care about me if I were doing the interviewees. They care about who is being interviewed and what they have to say.
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.
LikeLike
I think you have the traffic for a couple of reasons. One, you are already well established as a blogger, have been for a long time, and got established by writing tons of good, short, interesting articles. The other reason, in my view, for the video traffic is the interviewees, like Tim O’Reilly and Matt Mullenweg. Do people care what you have to say in those videos. I would be surprised if so. I wouldn’t expect them to care about me if I were doing the interviewees. They care about who is being interviewed and what they have to say.
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.
LikeLike
I don’t know the statistics but I have read all your posts but I have not seen any of your videos.
LikeLike
I don’t know the statistics but I have read all your posts but I have not seen any of your videos.
LikeLike
I find that the videos are generally inefficient, irritating, and almost never watch them. They should be used sparingly, with good reason. News should take seconds to parse, not minutes.
LikeLike
I find that the videos are generally inefficient, irritating, and almost never watch them. They should be used sparingly, with good reason. News should take seconds to parse, not minutes.
LikeLike
Context is king – yes. Initial attention can be grabbed with eye candy – video, images, whatever — or audio, especially if the “context” supports that interest. Some content is not only just fine with text but sometimes “requires” just text. It’s all about context.
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.
LikeLike
Context is king – yes. Initial attention can be grabbed with eye candy – video, images, whatever — or audio, especially if the “context” supports that interest. Some content is not only just fine with text but sometimes “requires” just text. It’s all about context.
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.
LikeLike
Apples and oranges.
LikeLike
Apples and oranges.
LikeLike
Great points Scoble. I wholeheartedly agree. It’s a nice debate, but I still have to say that text is king over video….unless you’re writing an essay, then video might be better. However, not many of us are out here writing essays. 🙂
LikeLike
Great points Scoble. I wholeheartedly agree. It’s a nice debate, but I still have to say that text is king over video….unless you’re writing an essay, then video might be better. However, not many of us are out here writing essays. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m not interested in EA’s new whatever game but let’s say Valve’s next game which targets me better. If there’s just an video on their homepage I won’t be watching it. If there’s just an 1000-word-essay on their homepage I won’t be reading it. If there’s text with screenshots I’m interested. If the text and the screenshots are interesting, I’ll watch eventually the additional example video.
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)
LikeLike
I’m not interested in EA’s new whatever game but let’s say Valve’s next game which targets me better. If there’s just an video on their homepage I won’t be watching it. If there’s just an 1000-word-essay on their homepage I won’t be reading it. If there’s text with screenshots I’m interested. If the text and the screenshots are interesting, I’ll watch eventually the additional example video.
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)
LikeLike
Why should it be either-or? Provide a text transcription along with the video. Voila, search and skim enabled.
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_Bot-Mediated_Reality
LikeLike
Why should it be either-or? Provide a text transcription along with the video. Voila, search and skim enabled.
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_Bot-Mediated_Reality
LikeLike
I’m happy to scan reams of text, breaking as needed to deal with other things (answering the phone or whatever) – video or audio, though, is much less controllable. It lacks the “random access” aspect of text, as well as being much slower to convey most information. (Not to mention that I do a fair amount of my blog reading on my iPhone on the train – no chance of video there unless it’s YouTube!)
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.
LikeLike
I’m happy to scan reams of text, breaking as needed to deal with other things (answering the phone or whatever) – video or audio, though, is much less controllable. It lacks the “random access” aspect of text, as well as being much slower to convey most information. (Not to mention that I do a fair amount of my blog reading on my iPhone on the train – no chance of video there unless it’s YouTube!)
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.
LikeLike
It’s going to be a long time before we stop reading …http://bit.ly/dFMk
LikeLike
It’s going to be a long time before we stop reading …http://bit.ly/dFMk
LikeLike
As was said further up, people have different preferred perception systems, but about 40% are supposed to be visual (20% auditory, and 40% audio-digital, which basically means text).
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/69874922/people-find-how-to-videos-boring
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
http://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.
LikeLike
As was said further up, people have different preferred perception systems, but about 40% are supposed to be visual (20% auditory, and 40% audio-digital, which basically means text).
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/69874922/people-find-how-to-videos-boring
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
http://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.
LikeLike
Text is indeed King for all the reasons noted. For me to watch a video online I must first believe it has something of (enough) value for me to shift all of my ‘attention’, a word I know you love, to it. Unfortunately this is rarely the case.
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.
LikeLike
Text is indeed King for all the reasons noted. For me to watch a video online I must first believe it has something of (enough) value for me to shift all of my ‘attention’, a word I know you love, to it. Unfortunately this is rarely the case.
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.
LikeLike
Multi-media is the real king.
LikeLike
Multi-media is the real king.
LikeLike
Video works better than text. You only have to look at history to see how TV completely decimated all other forms of communication in terms of adoption, revenue, etc. Video killed the radio star, the newspaper star, the book star. The big dollars are and have been in video on TV. Now with a new distribution channel over the Web video is growing like crazy. Think about this, October saw more videos viewed 13.5 billion than core search queries (11.8b, ComScore)! That 13.5b is up 45% YOY. Video online is what people are looking for.
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.
LikeLike
Video works better than text. You only have to look at history to see how TV completely decimated all other forms of communication in terms of adoption, revenue, etc. Video killed the radio star, the newspaper star, the book star. The big dollars are and have been in video on TV. Now with a new distribution channel over the Web video is growing like crazy. Think about this, October saw more videos viewed 13.5 billion than core search queries (11.8b, ComScore)! That 13.5b is up 45% YOY. Video online is what people are looking for.
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.
LikeLike
I’m with srikanth. Have read pretty much every Scoble posting here in the last few years yet only watched one or two videos – if that.
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.
LikeLike
I’m with srikanth. Have read pretty much every Scoble posting here in the last few years yet only watched one or two videos – if that.
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.
LikeLike
At the end of the day textual content still rules the roost when it comes to search rankings and nothing is going to change that. But you’re right, when there is so much rich media available it’s stupid to put all your eggs in one basket – every little bit helps and different media are better suited to different purposes. You have to balance search engine friendliness with usability, something that a lot of sites seem to forget. A good balance of media should ensure a site that can be found and that people will return to time and time again, that’s the winning formula.
LikeLike
At the end of the day textual content still rules the roost when it comes to search rankings and nothing is going to change that. But you’re right, when there is so much rich media available it’s stupid to put all your eggs in one basket – every little bit helps and different media are better suited to different purposes. You have to balance search engine friendliness with usability, something that a lot of sites seem to forget. A good balance of media should ensure a site that can be found and that people will return to time and time again, that’s the winning formula.
LikeLike
Though video brings audience, I think that any developed idea has to be written down.
LikeLike
Though video brings audience, I think that any developed idea has to be written down.
LikeLike
Congrats Robert on a great first year. Up and to the right!
LikeLike
Congrats Robert on a great first year. Up and to the right!
LikeLike
Congrats Robert on a great first year. Up and to the right!
LikeLike
Congrats Robert on a great first year. Up and to the right!
LikeLike
Good post Scoble. I guess a question for you and the community is this:
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
LikeLike
Good post Scoble. I guess a question for you and the community is this:
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
LikeLike
@Cannonball – I would have to disagree with your assertion “textual content still rules the roost when it comes to search rankings and nothing is going to change that”.
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.
LikeLike
@Cannonball – I would have to disagree with your assertion “textual content still rules the roost when it comes to search rankings and nothing is going to change that”.
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.
LikeLike
Actually, audio is king for me. If I could *listen* to your show, while on the road, etc., I’d be listening all the time. Video requires my undivided attention
LikeLike
Actually, audio is king for me. If I could *listen* to your show, while on the road, etc., I’d be listening all the time. Video requires my undivided attention
LikeLike
Basically what you’re more or less agreeing on is that the message has to fit both medium and reciepient. This isn’t new.
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.
LikeLike
Basically what you’re more or less agreeing on is that the message has to fit both medium and reciepient. This isn’t new.
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.
LikeLike
Maybe the point really is to use ALL the available tools when it makes sense to do so?
LikeLike
Maybe the point really is to use ALL the available tools when it makes sense to do so?
LikeLike