The cost of making something good is directly proportional to the complexity of the tools needed to create it. (The picture is from Freeadvice.com.)
This blog item is quite good. The tools needed to create words are very cheap. Even if the tools were more expensive, as they were when I began writing, my cost to create this text would not go up much. And the likelihood of its being of high quality would be just as high.
If I read this on the radio it would not be as good. The tools needed to create a Podcast require knowledge of radio or music production values. Even if Podcasts were as cheap to make as blog items, the proportion of good ones would be smaller than they are for blog items.
And so we come to the latest moves by Microsoft and Sony to deliver consumer video.
Video is very complex. Good video demands your full attention. Even if video cost as llittle to make as a blog item, the proportion of good ones would be very, very low.
If 10% of blogs are worth reading, and 1% of Podcasts are worth hearing, perhaps 1/10th of 1% of the online video that will soon flood the market will be worth seeing.
What this means, given the flood of bad video we know is coming, is that if you really want to make money here, give me a way to quickly pick through the garbage and find the good stuff.
That's easier said than done because, as with blogs and podcasts we the people are no longer willing to accept your authority to make that choice.
This means you, Mr. Stringer. You, too, Mr. Gates.
And so, now that you know Dana's Law of Content, the game is afoot!
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Giovanni Erba on April 1, 2005 04:46 PM writes...
Bad video requires your full attention too, before you decide to stop watching. I guess the difference is that with text and pictures the reader controls timing. With audio and moving picture the reader gives control of timing up to the author and expects something in return.
Permalink to CommentThe difference, and the amount of attention required, become not so clear if you consider early MTV, The Weather Network, or CNN on a slow day.
They might be on but they don’t require your full attention.
2. Giovanni Erba on April 1, 2005 05:04 PM writes...
Bad video requires your full attention too, before you decide to stop watching.
Permalink to CommentI guess the difference is that with text and pictures the reader controls timing.
With audio and moving picture the reader gives control of timing up to the author and expects something in return.
The difference, and the amount of attention required, become not so clear if you consider early MTV, The Weather Network, or CNN on a slow day.
They might be on but they don’t require your full attention.
3. Eric Rice on April 3, 2005 05:18 AM writes...
And who will be the ultimate judge of what is and is not good and compelling?
Permalink to Comment4. karmagrrrl on April 4, 2005 02:08 AM writes...
"Even if video cost as llittle to make as a blog item, the proportion of good ones would be very, very low."
As bandwidth costs lessen, and video becomes easier to produce it would be the same ratio as anything else.
There is a pause/stop button on audio and video controls.. giving the audience control of what they see/hear and when.
Reading anything on the radio or on video wouldn't be as good - it's a different medium and requires attention to different things.
So the more complex something is to create, the better chance that is sucks? ...beeecuz the people creating video have to be skilled to create video?
The bigger picture is being missed here.
Permalink to Comment5. Chuck Olsen on April 4, 2005 10:28 AM writes...
I'm not sure about those percentages, but there's some truth to the point. I've said before that to make a good, compelling blog you need to be a good writer. Good writing takes work. To make a compelling podcast, you need good writing AND good audio, which presents technical challenges and talent challenges. For good video you need all of that plus compelling visuals.
There's more to consider though... A blog written for friends and family doesn't have to be brilliant, it just has to make those people feel connected to you. So, intended audience makes a big difference.
Consider also how unique/intimate/amazing the content is. You didn't hear people complaining about the quality of tsunami video because we were privileged to see such a terrible disaster. I think you could say the more compelling the content, the less important production value is. (To some extent you could have really cool production or special effects without much content - sheer asthetic value - but that's probably only true of a certain audience.)
Some of my favorite videoblogs are nothing more than someone talking to the camera, or pointing the camera at something and making me think... or feel. Anyone who can tell a good story will be a natural for one or all of these media. More people, more stories... that's a good thing.
Filters are a very good thing. Videoblogs are small in number but already I need a filter.
Permalink to Comment6. David Ormesher on April 8, 2005 09:47 AM writes...
I agree with Chuck that the uniqueness or intimacy of a video clip is a driver of how finely tuned our crap-filter is. But even more important is audience targeting and content value for that niche audience.
I have produced $300K 60-second shorts to try to capture the interest of a passive audience... but I have also taken a consumer video camera and asked consumers about their attitudes or interests. I then slapped it together with jump cuts and showed it in a corporate board room. The men and women around the room were hanging on every word and wanted copies of the video...
Permalink to Comment7. VlogBlog.com on April 8, 2005 03:53 PM writes...
I would have to agree in principle with most of this. Making good video doesn't come as easily to many people as, say, writing. One reason is because of the complexity, but another is because we aren't taught how to make good video in school, the way we're taught how to write, and even to speak. We also speak all the time, so we're bound to improve on that skill too. That said, things will start to change at least somewhat. Video will be taught in schools one day in the future. As kids are expected to write compostions now, they may be expected to produce videos one day. As we've grown up with video all our lives, I believe most of us do have a latent sophistication in video that needs to be tapped and developed. The key word here is "developed."
As for another of your points - shifting through the chaff - it's true that it's harder to do that with video than it is with writing. As readers, we are highly skilled at scanning. About 50% of people stay on a web page less than 8 seconds. They scan it very quickly and decide whether it's worth their time to scan a little more. They don't even truly read until after a second scan through at the very least. Though it may get easier to "scan" through a video, it still won't be the same because of the nature of video itself.
Joe Foley
Permalink to Commenthttp://www.vlogblog.com