A little while back I was chatting with an audio podcaster. He was excited because he would soon be “upgrading” to video podcasting. I asked about the reason for the change. The answer was: “Because it’s the future.” I didn’t find that to be the best reason for a change.
There’s no doubt that web video has rapidly gained popularity over the past year, especially with the advent of the iPod with video and the hype behind You Tube. The consumption of online and portable video will only continue to grow. But will video replace audio?
The answer is NO. Audio and video both have their advantages and disadvantages. I advise against adopting video just because it seems “in vogue.”
A report from Nielsen Media Research at the end of 2006 showed that only 2.2% of files played by Video iPod users on either iTunes or the device itself were videos. When measured by time spent consuming content, video still only made up 11% of the content consumed by Video iPod users. I’d venture to say these numbers are lower than Apple or video content producers expected.
Again, I’m not trying to advocate one format over another. It’s just important to be aware of the realities of audio and video consumption. It’s also important to consider the right criteria when choosing which format to use.
In my next post, I’ll take a look at the advantages and disadvantages of each format and present some important things to consider when choosing which to use yourself.
Email: jason AT jasonvanorden.com
Voicemail Line: +1 877-877-7799
January 17th, 2007 at 7:50 am
You are so right, Jason. Audio and video are two completely different media. With their own advantages. We know, that people use podcast to make use of time used on activities like walking the dog, biking to and from work, cleaning, jogging, etc. and video doesn´t work there. Audio is a background media. Video is a foreground media which demands full attention.
Besides – too many video podcasts are just talking heads.
I am an audio person – is that too obvious ;-)
January 17th, 2007 at 11:06 am
I consume a lot more audio myself for the very reason you bring up. There are a few video podcasts I watch, but talking heads do become tedious unless there’s a compelling reason to have the visual aspect.
Jason
January 17th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
For my own podcasts, video only makes sense in limited ways. Folks don’t need to see me doing one of my solo shows, but I do sometime push out little video postcards or snippets which I think they might enjoy. I, too, am majorlu an audio consumer, usually listening in the car as I drive from consulting call to consulting call. Video can’t be consumed in that environment, although sitting with a video iPod while having lunch might be enjoyable.
January 17th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
One big point to remember: you can’t watch video while you drive or you die. You also can’t effectively surf and watch video at the same time. This is not to demean video, but to point out two very pragmatic reasons you’ll always want audio as well as video.
January 17th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Video might not be the second wave on Ipods, but it gets a lot more use on the web itself. And I think, as a medium, it is much better than audio or the written word in terms of getting the point across. Its really a matter of what you are applying it to. But, will it replace audio? Nope.
January 17th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Dave,
I can see what you’re saying about getting the point across, but do you feel like video *always* gets the point across better as a general rule? Or is it superfluous in some cases?
For certain kinds of information, it’s more effective to just offer audio. Video would just be extraneous and not add any value.
Even further, there are cases where I prefer just to have the text because I can skim that faster than I can jump through audio or video.
Granted, their is a balance somewhere between the ability to convey information efficiently and the ability to connect with the audience on a more personal/emotional level.
This illustrates another point. It’s important to offer your content in multiple formats when it’s practical. Everyone will have different preferences for how they consume your content.
January 18th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I would say it depends on the type of content. Technical content, for example, might be better offered using text and images (in other words, traditional HTML). However, the beauty of video is that it provides information along with the visual mass. By balancing theory with the mass, users get a full understanding of whatever it is you are talking about.
Also, it is hard to think of a better medium if you are trying to reach a person at an emotional level. It can be done with audio, however video provides a richer experience.
Video has limitations, yes, but, it holds a user’s attention better than anything else, IF it is well-produced.
BTW, I’m simply speaking here from the viewpoint of a publisher. And those of us in this business are obviously looking, generally, to get a point across to our readers and ultimately get them to do something we want them to do. As a end-user, obviously, video is not always what I want. :)