The problem with video
In the midst of a long anti-Scoble ramble, Neopolean makes the same kind of point about online video that I've been making for a long while now:
Nobody consulted me - and nobody should have - but if they had, I would have said to do audio, or even just images with text. A typical news site, but with the Scoble brand. Whatever I may be feeling about him this morning, I'm not going to deny that his name is worth something in this industry.
My guess is that Scoble and co wanted to "get in" on the growing popularity of niche video news sites. The difference is that, when you take a look at what some of the other more successful sites are doing, Scoble's videos are too long (in terms of the bandwidth it takes to serve them up). If you don't have gobs of dough in the bank, then every minute is important. By not editing out the boring bits, the videos are going up as-is, gigantic and all.
Very few people are going to sit at their PC's and watch a 45 minute video - when you see successes in online video, you see short - Ze Frank, RocketBoom - stuff that doesn't take long to consume. Long video just takes up too much time and attention to deal with - and if your answer is "just listen, don't watch", then my answer is "push it out as an audio mp3". Audio is a lot easier to consume than video, and can be consumed when it's too hard (or impossible) to read (a car, out jogging, etc).
Insisting on a video format just because you can is a nice way to increase your bandwidth costs and reduce the potential size of your audience. How that works as a business plan, I'm not sure.
Comments
[Boris] March 18, 2007 22:55:52.033
Ditto. It just seems like its one of those "because I can" or even "audio is 1.0". Anyone I've ever cared to ask about this say they haven't watched a single minute of these videos, but would probably hit subscribe if it was a podcast in iTunes. Its too bad Scoble doesn't want to listen, he's missing out big time. Its time to grow up and cater to the audience, being arrogant enough to say "don't watch then" and getting paid well is only going to last so much.
It's not arrogance, it's a business decision
[Robert Scoble] March 19, 2007 2:10:18.842
What both of you miss is I'm not trying to be Ze Frank. If I were, I'd do three minute videos.
I want to go deeper with my subjects than anyone else.
I wonder if anyone calls up Charlie Rose and asks him to cut his hour-long interviews down.
My traffic is doing just fine, thank you very much.
But, I will eventually do a shorter-length video show.
Oh, and you might just watch anything marked "demo."
Those are usually shorter in length (I try to keep demos less than 10 minutes). I do that on purpose to make you happy.
Charlie Rose
[ James Robertson] March 19, 2007 6:28:07.199
Comment by James Robertson
His audience is pretty small, too - and for what he does, audio only would be a nice addition as well. The problem with video is the time that it takes to consume. The added burden for online video is that the consumption mostly has to take place during work hours. In the evening, when I have my laptop in the living room, my wife doesn't want to watch online videos - as she puts it, she "wants to watch something with a plot". That takes out long form video interviews of all kinds.