My name is Ken Molay. I write a blog about webinar technology, news, and best practices. In this post I am going to talk about the reasons online video is lowering the effectiveness of communication. The internet started as a place where people could share information with others interested in the same subject. It was comprised of things like interest groups, bulletin boards, email lists, and subnets dedicated to specific topics. Then the World Wide Web came along and shattered the initial concept by creating a mass distribution and broadcast paradigm, where you could just post information on publicly accessible web pages without worrying about whether it was reaching a specific audience. People went "surfing" to see if maybe there was something interesting to capture their attention. Sometimes there was, and sometimes there wasn't. It took a while for the mass media industry to catch up with what private individuals and then corporate entities were doing with brand awareness and the revenue potential of large viewership impressions, but by this point in 2014, the communications industry has caught up with a vengeance, ruthlessly competing for clicks and "time on page" by teasing the most salacious and hyperbolic headlines and photos possible to encourage additional clickthroughs.
Which brings me to the point about why video sucks
Did you read that whole first paragraph? Really paying attention? In most cases, the answer is no. I worked hard to create an awful introduction to my topic. Long, rambling, filled with background and history that is only tangentially related to the headline that got you to click on this post.
But you didn't have to give up on the entire article. You could quickly scan past the introduction block and spot a sentence that related to the subject line. "Maybe this is the spot where the information starts." I even gave you a helpful visual cue by bolding a subhead to help organize the structure.
Video for information delivery is a time waster
Video kills our ability to be efficient learners because it is ruthlessly sequential. You cannot ignore the introductory material or visually scan to a spot where your interests are being served.
A video presentation usually focuses first on the presenter - even though your interest in the story was not based on who was presenting it. Then it has to supply some background and context - because some members of the viewing audience might not be familiar with it and we have to bring everyone up to a minimum common denominator of understanding. Then it introduces evidentiary information - some of which might be new to the viewer while other pieces are already known. And if we are lucky, it makes a point at the end and provides new insight for the viewer.
Web text avoids video's problems
The structure of text on the Web makes this process ridiculously easy. Don't know the background? Click a hyperlink to read previous stories that introduce the topic, then come back to this story. Want to know more about the presenter? Click a hyperlink to read the biography or swoon over pictures of the gorgeous hunk/bombshell. Interested in one particular piece of information? If your author is nice, s/he organizes subheads to help you quickly find your way to specific topics. Need a visual to help understand something better? It can be embedded inline with the verbiage to highlight and enhance understanding directed to that one point.
Slideshare is as bad as video shoots
I am using Slideshare as shorthand for an entire class of online presentation products. Apologies to them, but kudos for getting big enough to immediately embody the concept of a whole category of software! I'm talking here about products that let the viewer click sequentially through slide after slide of information. Yes, it's nice that viewers control their own pacing. But they still have to see every slide, often reduced to a single sentence or even a portion of a sentence and requiring multiple clicks just to complete an analogy or thought.
Take a look at this presentation on Digg. Click on the animation to advance it.
The author, Daniella Urdinlaiz, has put a lot of work into gathering up useful information and illustrating it with engaging graphics. Nice job and I don't mean to malign her in any way.
It's the delivery mechanics that bug me. After the first 20 clicks to see portions of sentences appear in sequence, I simply lose interest. I have no idea how long it is going to go on and I feel like I can't jump to information about a particular fruit of interest.
Compare Daniella's presentation to this similar article: "Seriously, Stop Refrigerating These Foods" by Christopher Snow on Reviewed.com. Christopher uses sub-heads so you can immediately scan to a type of food and get the desired information of interest. Even though it is a long article, your eyes can take in a complete concept or useful tip at a single glance.
The information is good information in both places. Daniella's looks more engaging and has a higher "content density" of information versus screen space. But I argue that Christopher's has a higher "content density" of information versus time needed to absorb it.
Daniella's is preferred by providers… They can embed more of these little title-slide snapshots on a single page and encourage more clicks, building value for advertising and site engagement scores. It is undoubtedly better suited to mobile viewing. But as a busy professional, I value my time over screen space, so I prefer Christopher's version.
How does this relate to webinars?
I admit that this post is partially just a personal rant railing ineffectually about how I hate change and how "life was better when I was a kid and bread cost a nickel and we knew how to respect our elders." So sue me.
But I feel a responsibility to keep at least somewhat on topic, so in part two (now online... click here) I will discuss how to think about the way your audience takes in your information in both live and recorded formats so you can make your webinars more effective and less frustrating for your viewers.
