Semi-OT: Do You Prefer Written or Video Content Online?
This tweet just came across the transom, and it is morbidly fascinating to me.
SCOOP: Fox Sports is cutting its online writing staff to invest those resources in video. Story on the terminal. Link TK.
— Lucas Shaw (@Lucas_Shaw) June 26, 2017
I suspect that the audience of a writing-heavy blog will not be representative of the larger population, but still, it's worth asking here. Whether it be news, politics, sports, or more niche topics, there seems to be a trend amongst many content providers to increase their quantity of video content. This often comes at the expense of written articles.
How do you prefer to consume content? How do you ACTUALLY consume it, regardless of preferences? Do you prefer articles and columns, or videos?
It's pretty hard to pretend like you're working if you have to watch a video, as opposed to written content.
I find that the videos actually take up way more of my time than written content. Usually I'll need to sit through an ad and some meaningless intro before they get to the topic, and even then they often will do some teases or background info and save the actual topic for the very end.
Contrast this to written content, which allows for me to quickly skim and find exactly what I'm looking for. I'll take written over video all day.
If you timed it, it takes proabaly 3-4 times as long to get the same content out of a video as it does to read that content.
Who has time for that?
Video should be strictly for selective augmentation of a story.
I don't need to see a video of a talking head saying something over two and a half minutes that I can read in 20 seconds.
I prefer written. If I want video, I will do a search for video content.
Video bores me after awhile.
I much prefer written content over video online. In fact, for the most part, I can't stand video content online. They're usually insipid, infused with ads, slow down my browser, and can't be watched during work hours with the sound on. Also, for some reason, a lot of video content that is linked to online seems to be accompanied by an explanatory production of the clip by some idiot commentator rather than just the clip itself. I can't stand that. Just show the damn clip! I don't need some jackass introducing it and explainining it. The caption or title of the clip is almost always sufficient, and the clip speaks for itself.
Definitely written.
If I want video, I'll go on YouTube.
The only time I want video commentary is when circumstances are changing on a real-time basis (a sporting event, the unveiling of the NCAA bracket, etc.). I don't need to hear anybody's voice to tell me that Player X just signed a 3-year extention or Recruit Y wants to visit Ann Arbor.
I am in with the folks that prefer written content. I really can't stand it when the major outlets will run with a short paragraph and then 4 or 5 minutes of filmed commentary as try to sell people on the notion that this somehow constitutes anything resembling an opinion or editorial piece. That, and most of the time you really only need a portion of the video whereas with written pieces you're getting a focused discussion throughout (usually) and none of the irrelevant items.
4 or 5 minutes of filmed commentary that, were the exact same arguments made in written form, would take 1 minute to read.
video is a talking head blathering on.
I can read faster than they can talk, so I can scan the article, preview the content, or read it entirely before the video is even done with the prelim (I'm a speed reader), plus, as many have said, I can't watch videos at work.
Video has its uses, but I would typically prefer text. Text is searchable, allows for much greater depth and nuance, is suitable for viewing and reading most anywhere, and uses less data, battery power, etc. And particularly with news or analysis, the most effective use of video tends to be the insertion ofcarefully-selected, short vidoe clips to augment a well-written article--not the wholesale replacement of text altogether.
I do like the content that has a video of a play to illustrate what they're saying. But written because it has a larger bandwidth.
Definitely written for me.
about customers prefering video.
It's just more a more effective format for them to sell advertising.
Yep. Not only can they charge more, as soon as the video you are watching is over another one automatically starts up with another ad before it.
I expect more to go this route. You used to see sites like Bleacher Report have 30 page slide shows instead of articles for more clicks. Now that they have wised up and they only count as one click, it's only a matter of time before they all start doing more videos.
but there's a lot more to it than just $ rates and running an ad before & after.
It's about controlling the experiece, not just with sound & visuals, but the aspect of time, and using the format as a complete content gateway.
now I'm depressed.
Watching video is too slow. Much more content can be absorbed in a shorter amount of time from written text.
Also, video is not workplace friendly.
Hate when writers decide they need to go to video. You're a writer. Write.
Plus, most of them have a face for radio, so they don't need to be throwing it up there in video.
on most mainstream sites, it's not the WRITERS who decide to go video...
I generally don't care to watch videos of people sitting there talking. I'd rather read.
Plus, writing seems to be a more precise way to make arguments and allows for greater articulation. Video allows for more tone and body language, but I just find it so sloppy compared to measured, well written content.
i only watch videos where hamsters eat tiny burritos
I just watched that at work. So many people in my office looked at me funny when I started laughing. Worth it.
Auto-play video!
Written content is typically all I click on. Even if it's something that sounds interesting to me, I most likely won't click on content I know is a video. I can't really explain why. Maybe it's because I can skip around written content more easily.
always room for video, but it's not accessable to everyone. It's just the new form of content that everyone wants becuase Google says it's better and improves your SEO if you have it. That's probably the only reason. If anyone things video will outpace or overtake written, they must be crazy. Video is far more time-consuming and expensive to produce than written content.
I enjoy video content, don't get me wrong, but only if I have wifi and headphones (or am alone somewhere where I won't bother others with the sound). If I click on an article that doesn't have a written copy and is video-only, I will immedetly leave the page unless I'm very, very, very much interested in the content and that video-only content better be exclusive at that point or I'm definitely going somewhere else.
Written for me, thanks. Always.
I suppose videos are quicker and easier for outfits like Fox Sports. As well, they probably satisfy the needs of the audience. Advertising (surely part of the game) was cited in another post.
While we're on the same general subject, I dislike voice mails for the same reason. The information transfer is always either too slow (generally) or too fast (rarely). Years ago I had a director who routinely left me 3-minute-plus voice mails (just shy of what I remember as a 4-minute limit) and expected me to scoop up every detail. Egad.
I prefer written content, unless it's about Kate Upton.
has its own value.
I never shout online, but man, I strongly prefer WRITTEN content. In fact, I rarely watch the news. One of my favorite quotes was from Walter Cronkite, and the subject was written vs. video content. His comment was that written content can go so much more indepth.
Having said that, I strongly prefer written content that doesn't involve interminable page clicks. I know this has to do with advertising, but I absolutely hate it. In fact, I still subscribe to the Chicago Tribune Sunday paper. Why? As time goes on, there are more and more and more Tribune generated popups and annoying ads that keep me from reading and scan ning the content.
Regarding video content, there is a time and a place. I absolutely love watching the clips Brian uses in UFR. Over at Umhoops, I enjoy the video content of "5 important plays" which highlight turning points in a game. I like when Seth uses video, ideally slowed down with text explanation, so I can see the development of a play, or the anatomy of a scheme.
But please, give me good written content.
With full-text articles. Thank you, mgoblog.
Written. I work in media and it seems like everything we do is going more toward video and shorter length stories. I love reading. I read before bed every night and love reading everything here. I can't stand clicking on a link and seeing it's a video.
I also read before bed every night. It's how I clear my head of all the shit I think about during the day. While I love to read anyway, I can't sleep without reading first.
Depends on the type of content. If we're talking strictly news and stories, then written all day, everyday. But as a designer and woodworker, seeing a professional doing their craft, live, with commentary is valuable, to say an article covering the same process.
I, like seemingly everyone else here, prefer the written word over video in most situations. FOX, ESPN and any other news source really doesn't care. They will get more money from having video content and being able to run those annoying 15-30 second ads at the start of their content.
I have my own office so I can keep working while listening to Audio/Video and still get things done at work. I just wasted 15 minutes of productivity by reading this.
Hey, get back to work!
Hardly ever listen to online content... if I have to listen and can't just read or skim. 98% of the time I skip it.
Written.
Video is so surface level. Most writing is too but you aren't forced to sit through it to find out if it's any good. One glance'll tell you.