Remember when “Flash Intros” (or what Adobe would prefer me to call “introductory animations created with the software Adobe Flash,” lest I dilute their trademark) were all the rage? You had to have one play when a user first arrived at your site to be considered hip, media savvy, and up-to-date.
But in reality, most of these detracted from rather than added to a web site’s experience, resulting in lots of users clicking on the oft-included “skip intro” button so they could get to what they were really after: the content on a site. In the end, many were an annoyance rather than a value-add.
I’m beginning to fear that web video could suffer the same fate. I’m sure you and your client feel more hip, media savvy, and up-to-date when you include video on their site, but are you really serving their user by doing so?
In many cases, information delivered in a web video can be less useful than media-poor plain text. For example, video content often does not show up in search engines. You can rarely scan a video to get the gist of the story. You can’t easily quote a select bit to make a note to yourself or pass onto a friend or peer – you have to force them to watch the whole thing, including quite often an advertisement up front (as opposed to above, below, or off to the side, as is the case with text).
As a result, I personally find myself avoiding news stories on CNN.com that are delivered as video rather than text. Same with interviews on sports sites such as Sherdog.com. Aside from the fact that a well-written article could often convey the information to me more quickly, I don’t want to have to slap on a pair of headphones or turn on a speaker and subject others in the office to hearing what I’m watching (and I work at home; I’d hate to feel the pressure to avoid such distractions in a real office!).
No, I’m not a Luddite; indeed, we’ve been moving more of our business onto the internet, including creating videos for the web. And there are many cases where seeing someone talk about or do something is far more powerful than just reading about it. (Or is simply more entertaining – take Ask a Ninja on YouTube). Video on the web is often the best way to convey a piece of information or entertainment, and it needs to be a part of your range of services that you offer your clients.
But I can’t help but to think that in too many cases, a video is used as a lazy way out for the content creator, causing the content consumer to potentially have to suffer as a result.
Will they suffer? Or simply Skip?
Maybe we should just be quiet and take the work. After all, the client is always right (at least as long as they pay their bills on time), and a lot of people made a lot of money creating Flash Intros for awhile. But we’ve personally built our business around being a partner to our clients, using our experience to help them get their message out in the most effective manner – not just doing simply what they ask. That’s why we think about these things, along with other seemingly odd topics I’ve been blogging about recently such as logo branding, repurposing content, and market segments. It’s a way to make yourself more valuable to your clients as well.
Maybe we should make a video about that…
Business • Interactive •
(Page 1 of 1 pages for this article )
Me? I skip. I normally surf with plugins turned off anyway (using Safari) as the easiest way to avoid animated annoyances like Flash-based ads. And unless I’m specifically looking for a video (e.g., REDCINE tutorial; QuickTime movie trailer), I leave plugins off and videos unwatched: I can skim a written article a lot faster than I can watch a video, and life is too short waiting for slow downloads and putting up with poor quality.
Posted by Adam Wilt on 05/16 at 12:05 AM
I think that video on the web is done poorly so often that it might make it right.
I have explained to coutless companies how if done incorrectly the value of their piece is seriously diminished...so far it is falling on deaf ears.
Adobe, earlier on, had many videos posted which were still lower fields first, and looked really bad. These were never used for broadcast.
Lack of spec is keeping video over the internet a novelty act? I think the story and creativity is better than ever!
Using web video standards, distrobution tools like Tubemogul.com, SEO optimization with effective keywords, branding, and closed captioning for those at work...ETC...there are soooo many people doing it wrong...does that make it right?
Posted by Gravnetic on 05/25 at 08:01 AM
“there are soooo many people doing it wrong...does that make it right?”
It doesn’t make it right, but it lowers people’s expectations to think it’s okay when they see bad video. Interlaced field mush on web video - well, that’s what it looks like, right?
By creating good content, you can raise yourself above your competitors. It may not be obvious that you’re “right” while others are “wrong”, but it will build up with a subconcious reinforcement that your content is somehow better.
Anyway - the point of this post wasn’t quality, but whether you should even be using video at all. Often, it’s a fantastic way to present a concept. Sometimes, it’s a lazy cop-out when text with figures would have been better - for example, when providing step-by-step instructions for something technical that requires a lot of focus. Call me old-fashioned, but I like having a print-out next to me to follow.
Posted by Chris Meyer on 06/14 at 10:35 PM