Internet Culture seems to be obsessed with video. Sites like YouTube have become cultural phenomenons, and now companies like Qik and Ustream are jumping into the mix. This is in addition to content like CNET TV and Revision 3 producing regular video content for the web. It's obvious that the Internet culture has entered the age of video. But is this a good thing for those that want to grow a fanbase?
Video has the hobbling disadvantage of requiring high amounts of mental bandwidth. I can listen to audio while I'm doing something else, e.g. playing Eve or another game. Text, I can skim and read only what I'm interested in. In one case, I'm consuming the content passively, while I do something else. The other, I'm consuming actively, but it's on my terms and I can quickly decide whether I'm interested in the ideas. Video has to be consumed actively, and can't be viewed on the user's terms. It's the worst of both text and audio.
This wouldn't be such a big deal if there wasn't a huge array of content vying for my time. I have RSS feeds and podcasts to take in, and that's on top of scrounging the Web for content with sites like Digg. There is more interesting content than I have time for, and I'm not a busy guy. And I know I'm not alone in this - there are plenty of smart, tech-savvy users out there who are limited more by time than available content.
Another thing video doesn't do well is creating a connection with the user. I am a fan of people, not shows. I don't listen to Buzz out Loud, TWiT, and the Digital Home because I think the shows are neat. I tune in week after week because I like the Tom Merritt, Molly Wood, Jason Howell, Leo Laporte, and Don Reisinger. I've connected with them, and even though it's almost entirely a one-way relationship, that relationship does exist. This works because their content is authentic - I'm not listening to some contrived personality. Video creates pressure to be a personality, which takes something I might enjoy and makes it throwaway. Case in point: the recently cancelled "Lab with Leo Laporte." Social media is more than just social networking, it's forming a relationship with the content creator.
Of course, video isn't doomed. There is a lot of excellent, authentic video content out there. Shows like Diggnation are flourishing because people connect with Alex and Kevin. But plenty of shows aren't doing so well because of the barriers users have to consuming video. If you're going to create a successful show in this social climate, I say stick with audio and text and engage your users. If nothing else, you'll save money on makeup.
March 7, 2008
March 6, 2008
Signal to Noise on Twitter
As you might have guessed, I'm a Twitter user. I log in a few times a day to check up on what's happening and maybe to drop a note into the ether. Currently, I follow 59 people, and have 13 followers. I have a humble Twitter existence, to be sure.
The problem I run into is that my Twitter feed becomes full rather quickly. If I don't log in for 8-12 hours, I can easily fill the 10 pages. Of course, most of this is stuff I'm not interested in - tweets from people I'm not too interested in and reply bacn. If I want to make sure I haven't missed anything from those I am actually interested in, I have to check their personal Twitter pages.
Many would say that the solution is to turn off replies in my feed. I don't like this because there are some replies that I do want to read. It just depends on who's sending them. People like Robert Scoble, Shel Israel, and Jason Calacanis I'm not interested in. I am, however, interested in what people such as Merlin Mann, Leo Laporte, Tom Merritt, and Don Reisinger have to say. Getting rid of replies would hide content I want to see.
I think the solution, then, is folder functionality. Users can create groups and define settings for that group. E.g. I could create a folder for low signal/noise people that doesn't show replies and a folder for high signal/noise people that does show replies. And, of course, there's always the full feed at twitter.com/home.
I think this ability to customize your social network is becoming necessary. As we create more and more connections across the Internet, it becomes increasingly difficult to follow all the information that is created by friends. We've been doing this with email for years - let's take that experience and integrate it into social networking.
The problem I run into is that my Twitter feed becomes full rather quickly. If I don't log in for 8-12 hours, I can easily fill the 10 pages. Of course, most of this is stuff I'm not interested in - tweets from people I'm not too interested in and reply bacn. If I want to make sure I haven't missed anything from those I am actually interested in, I have to check their personal Twitter pages.
Many would say that the solution is to turn off replies in my feed. I don't like this because there are some replies that I do want to read. It just depends on who's sending them. People like Robert Scoble, Shel Israel, and Jason Calacanis I'm not interested in. I am, however, interested in what people such as Merlin Mann, Leo Laporte, Tom Merritt, and Don Reisinger have to say. Getting rid of replies would hide content I want to see.
I think the solution, then, is folder functionality. Users can create groups and define settings for that group. E.g. I could create a folder for low signal/noise people that doesn't show replies and a folder for high signal/noise people that does show replies. And, of course, there's always the full feed at twitter.com/home.
I think this ability to customize your social network is becoming necessary. As we create more and more connections across the Internet, it becomes increasingly difficult to follow all the information that is created by friends. We've been doing this with email for years - let's take that experience and integrate it into social networking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
