David -

I think you "got it right" you will be "eating your words" and hopefully you will keep it short :-) As a heads-up, I expect to be doing vids myself soon. I see it as a better way to communicate and get to know and see one another. I also see it as a way to grow your business and encourage social networking for business and community.

David - Nice post.

From a practical standpoint, watching videos can be challenging with a busy work schedule.

Written posts can be skimmed, and key points can be read again and digested according to the needs of the user. Videos must be consumed linearly, and most applications forbid or discourage scouring back and forth to focus on certain information.

That said, from a personal standpoint, videos are somewhat of a curiosity. I can't wait to hear what you sound like. :)

Courtney, I admit I will likely be eating my words. Pictures can be worth a thousand words, but sometimes we don't need a thousand words. I still believe, in our ever more busy schedules, shorter is generally better. And as Cam points out in his comment, there are advantages to written posts that can be skimmed quickly.

Cam, you'll hear what I sound like somewhere down the road. There's a definite New York accent, although it's not as thick as it was wyen I was a kid because when I did radio in college, I heard myself and learned to tone it down a bit. But it's still there, for sure.

David, I think your point about video requiring more attention is a completely valid one. Perhaps it's an incentive to slow down and spend more time on things...

As we become more comfortable with video as a main part of our online experience (and certainly the advance of high-speed and ultra high-speed connections will help), it will become a natural extension of our lives, just as email has.

Incidentally, the image you used above, of an ooVoo chat, is actually a screen capture of a live video chat. I'm sure that in addition to viewing recorded videos, we'll also build video communication into our daily lives as well (maybe "The Jetsons" wasn't too far-fetched). It's still not the same as good old face-to-face, but it's about as close as we can get. And when you consider that you can get up to 6 people in a chat at a time, the possibilities are endless.

Full disclosure: ooVoo is my client.

David, I don't disagree, just know where it's going as I know you do. Tks for the post!

David: to get you blogging was a feat in and of itself. It was, in your words, and documented by you at your own blog, "a waste of time." And then you opened your mind and decided to experiment.

By virtue of your being over here in addition to your blogging at your place, is a testament to just how much value people get from your contributions (contributions that started by choosing to experiment). And how much joy you get out of it. Not to mention, you're ahead of many of your colleagues in understanding the 2.0 sector.

So experimentation is good. And in a world where we value "sharing" and "authenticity", a video is a great extension. We all don't need to do them or watch them, because in this new world we only have more choice, not less. I think shorter is good, too. But I'm not going to place time limits on personal expression--as that goes against everything I value about 2.0.

So, slick production crews or not, I encourage experimentation be that video, starting to blog, etc.

PS: Glad Scott pointed out that graphic. That is not a video per se, it's a video conference. I can't see anyone having an issue with that format, being they save clients tons of money on travel (tho' many f2f meetings can't be done this way) and they enable long-distance friends and colleagues to see one another (I also think it a tremendous tool for the troops abroad to connect with their families here).

Oh, and I forgot to add a plug for Matt Dickman's videos. He does a series where he shows us new technologies (RSS/FB/Seesmic/etc.) and gives us the pros and cons.

Now, those videos may go 3-5 minutes, or maybe less. But they save me an hour or two easily because he teaches us so much (thanks Matt!) Readers: Matt has a veritable treasure trove of videos on new tech from A-Z housed at:
http://technomarketer.typepad.com

And because he uses video and shows him walking you through actual pages (those are clearly in the shot, too), it's extremely effective even tho' he doesn't have an expensive camera crew.

Yes, ck, I agree that experimentation is good and I applaud you and others who are now doing that experimentation. My only real concern is regarding length, and I have that same concern when I see an overly long written post. I must admit, with time pressures I sometimes find myself not reading a very lengthy post, unless it's either so compelling or so important to me that I must read it all. But we've become fast-food consumers of information. USA Today is dramatic proof of that.

On the other hand -- and I know I'm contradicting myself -- it could be like The Sunday NY Times: You probably won't read it all, but it's nice to know it's all there.

Now you're talking your own personal preferences but, for videos, the true gems are found in the ones produced by our MARKETS.

For a client project that I did a year ago we needed to do research, including the 2.0 space. That required reading consumer posts and watching consumer videos (not high-end, just grab a camera and shoot, total 'grassroots' videos). Many of those videos were at least 5 minutes.

But in watching those 5 minute videos I gained authentic, unbiased feedback from the mouth of our markets (unlike placing them in a sterile focus group environment where they act differently).

Let's not be telling marketers to only listen for 2 minutes (because the true 'gems' might come in around minute 4--and that extended watching might save them some big money and/or help them identify an entirely new offering). Plus, in my opinion, the videos that are the most fun are done by consumers, not pros. They can be zany for sure, but they're surely telling on many of their preferences and help us to really "learn" about what they want/need/don't want/don't like.

I'm not saying a vid must be 2 minutes... or 4. If it takes 4 or 10 minutes to properly say something, then fine. I'm just saying in most cases, shorter is better, because we tend to repeat ourselves after a while, and throw in extraneous stuff. I say "we," because I'm as guilty as anyone on that count.

Marketers, or anyone, can listen as long as they like. It's their choice, especially when doing research.

David,

It isn't the tool (video) that isn't worthy, it is the inability of most to be clear and concise that leads to us clicking the stop button.

My one recommendation to anyone using a communications tool: Respect the tool and respect your audience by learning how to use the tool first, and then creating your videos. And please, please write a script.

@Lewis: Great advice, indeed. The thing is, and this is what baffles me, how to expect someone who has written over 500 posts to do videos--or at least the first handful of them--just as well? See, a lot need to experiment--I for one had NO clue my first 50 or so posts, that's for sure--so I needed to post them in order to learn.

That's the thing with any tool, one needs to experiment to advance at it. Just look at how you recently changed some of the focus on your great blog. It all comes from experimenting...doing...getting to know your style and focus better.

Did you really know how to use blogs and blogging when you launched? Cuz I really and truly did not (and I've still much, much to learn).

PS: and for "raw" consumer vids that help us better in our strategies and products I say, please keep them real, they're more fruitful on the research side that way.

Good point, Lewis. Whether video or text, clarity and conciseness (is that a word?)are key, unless you're writing a textbook.

What's to be baffled about, ck? No one "expects" any of us to be Steven Speilberg when it comes to our vids. Most of us are not in the video business, so we'll just do the best we can as amateur videographers, but professional communicators/marketers. And, repeating what Lewis said above, it's not just the video, but it's the message we're communicating that just happens to be in form of a video.

@David: You're right.

CK,

As always you are right. But we can experiment, as you are, on our blogs or even with smaller audiences. For us anal-retentive types, we will need to experiment in more private ways. I am just too conservative to experiment publicly.

For the record, CK has been experimenting with vids recently, with good results. Worth a look. Check it out at http://www.ck-blog.com

David, Remembering that video is a picture medium and not a written medium is a key place to start. As a former news producer for CBS, and then moving into marketing for the last two decades, I remind people that they must make videos interesting to watch. Shorter is better and having a succinct STORY to tell also works best. The story is key. It makes the video come alive. the web is just a different medium and it is still important to have a story to show even if it is just 30 seconds long.

I think it's good in that as others have said, it's a chance to experiment. Some can better get their point across and be more engaging in written form. Others has charisma and a presence on camera.

It's just another option for how we want to create and deliver content. More choice is good for everyone, IMO.

David -- Sorry I'm a little late to the comment party here, but:

1. Love Daisy Whitney's videos. They're very slick and professional -- and look like they should appear... well, exactly where they do. I guess the lesson there is to marry a videographer. (!)

2. That said, I also really like the "real" quality of the videos that many of my friends produce -- like CK, like Scott Monty, like Chris Brogan, to name a very few. I love how the ease and inexpense (is that a word? I'm tired) gives everyone *who wants one* a voice.

3. Notice how I said "who wants one" above. Like Mack says, more choice is wonderful. Go forth and record. Or not. Whatever works for you.

OK -- one more thing:

4. That was my poor graphical choice to illustrate your excellent post with the ooVoo videoconferencing graphic above. At 6:30 AM this morning, I googled "marketers on video" and there it was....so I grabbed it because I recognized my friends. Not the best choice to illustrate your post, in hindsight, because I knew ooVoo didn't exactly fit into what you were talking about. (It's video conferencing, vs. video blogging.) But what can I say? I'm not a morning person.

And finally: David's response here made me smile:

"There's a definite New York accent, although it's not as thick as it was when I was a kid because when I did radio in college, I heard myself and learned to tone it down a bit."

David -- Didn't I tell you a few months ago in NY that you had a great voice for podcasting/video? But to my Boston ears, I wouldn't describe your NY accent as "toned down" in the least. To me, it's anything but! But I guess it's relative!! : )

Whether it is a tradeshow, an event, a sales pitch or a blog you should use the media that allows you to most clearly present the information in a manner that is convenient and interesting to the audience.

Should video's be used in blogs? Absolutely they should but for the right reason. If you are just reading the post doing a head shot of yourself, I don't think video is needed. If you are explaining how to do something and it can be shown better that explained then video is excellent tool.

Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should.

Thank you all for the great comments here. I hope you understand I am not against vids at all but, as Harry says above, they should be for the right reason. Maybe my tongue-in-cheek tone didn't come through clearly to everyone, but I have no doubt that I'll be doing it too before the year is out.

Now I want to point you to an outstanding video that just came online, by Mark Goren and CK. It runs more than 60 seconds, but it's beautifully done and has great sentiment to it. And it's effective -- it just moved me to get off my tush and finally buy my ticket for Blogger Social, which I had been planning to do but never got around to actually doing. This vid got me to act, so you know it's effective.

Check it out at http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10323040090

"but, as Harry says above, they should be for the right reason."

@Harry and @David: A couple things that I feel worth hitting home on this good convo. First, while we mention vids I think most in the discussion are focusing on vids by companies and professionals (vs. consumers). I just don’t want readers to get confused as most vids are not by marketers, but by good ol’ consumers of all ages. And that can get confusing when people are just starting out in social media as it is so vast.

I do have a problem with “should” and “right”. See, social media is both founded upon and bolstered by personal expression. That’s what makes this space so rich and exactly what will guarantee its long-term success (sorry corporate America, this is one space that the people control, but that’s not to say you can’t form even better branding awareness and customer relationships through these tools). So we don’t want to be telling people what they should or should not be doing when it comes to any of the tools…be it a blog, microblog, wiki, vidcast, etc. Nor does anyone really have the corner on “right”. Because what’s right for me may not be right for you and so on and so forth.

Obviously, naturally, and of course, we’ll all have preferences. But a 20-minute video that saves me 10 hours of a learning curve is well worth it, to me. And a long one by consumers who give me rich insights is worth it to me, too. It’s a personal preference. What’s great about social media? We all have the right to read/view/listen to whichever blogs/vidcasts/podcasts we want to and avoid those we don’t (cuz there are zillions of them out there!).

I don’t want to sound like I’m lecturing, I just want to protect what’s so great about this medium…freedom and personal expression. That most definitely requires some experimentation, too. No one is perfect the first time out—we learn as we go, just like with all other new technologies (granted we do that more in public with social media but I find it makes us more brave…and more human ;-).

--oh, and insofar as the whopping 2 vidcasts I've done so far? I may be a blogging pro but I've set the bar SO low on my first two vids that it is foreseeable that I can only get better (cuz worse is hard to accomplish- ha!). I'm a marketing blogger and I haven't even done a "marketing vidcast" yet because I'm just trying to get used to 'being on a video'. I'm tellin' ya, it's not as easy as it looks (at least not for me!)

CK, point well taken re. "should." What I've been talking about here is vids in the marketing blogosphere. And I'm talking about my preference, since there are no rules.

I agree that the blogosphere is about freedom of expression and it should -- oops, I mean, and I'd love to see it remain that way.

@David: I tell ya what, if you want at some point, I'll help you do a vidcast. Better yet, you can even cut in on one of mine (just bring a cool hat becuz people like gimmicks and we gotta give the audience what they want being we're marketers and all).

CK, a deal. It'll be fun. (as long as my part is under 60 secs.) (just kidding.)

This piece is a breath of fresh air. Video demands a much, much greater commitment on the part of the audience, and the payoff had better be worth it. When I watch a video on a blog or site that tells me in five minutes something I could have gotten in words must faster - perhaps during a boring conference call, or reading it on my iPhone - I'm irritated.

(One really important aspect of prose: it's a random access format. I can zip through the first three paragraphs of material I already know and get right to what's new and interesting. With video, that's quite difficult to do, and I just bail on it 30 seconds in.)

As a result, I almost never watch videos on blogs or business sites; unless there's some content next to them it that makes me very, VERY sure that it's going to be worth my time, I skip it. Because when I do watch, it's almost always disappointing.

My feeling is that if your message was that important for me to get, you'd have put it in a format convenient to ME.

Thanks for weighing in here, John. I don't blog for entertainment, although there is certainly a valuable and worthwhile social aspect to it, which I am enjoying tremendously. But I want information quickly and to the point. It's simply a matter of so much to look at and so little time. "Short" and "to the point" does not have to impinge on creativity and freedom of expression.

Blog Video CONS:
-Creating acceptable video usually requires some editing time (not always).
-the user has to transcribe any quotes being taken from the posting.

Blog Video PROS:
-too numerous to list.

Doing good video is... hard.

Believe me, I'm in production of a new daily web show and it's taken me months to figure out the format of the show, and how I'm going to shoot it, light it, graphics, editing, sound, script writing, etc...

But then again, I started doing basic videos over a year ago, and now I'm trying to take it to the next level. This is fun stuff, but very hard to do.

It's going to take a lot of time and upgrades in technology before we all get it right, me included.

My advice: just starting doing any video now, anything at all. You have to start somewhere, and right now, there are no mistakes. Even poor quality videos are better than nothing.

Excellent discussion here.

I am very much in the "video needs a purpose" camp.

Matt D's videos are a great example of this: he's able to illustrate and explain things more efficiently and clearly using video

But so many other blog videos are a great big waste of time. Video demands my concentration in a way that print does not. (e.g. I don't have to hit a "pause" button if I want to answer the phone or daydream or click on another link.)

And as Jim K points out... it's hard to do good video. There's a lot more that goes into it than just writing and shooting. You need a premise or a reason why you're asking me, the viewer, to watch video rather than just read what you have to say. That's why TV pundits all wind up on talk shows like Crossfire - they need a gimmick.

I'm not saying you shouldn't experiment with video, but rather, you should be aware of your audience's expectations and what you hope to achieve with the different media.

Thanks Rick, Jim and Toad, for your comments. Clearly, there's a variety of opinion on vids, how polished they ought to be and how long or short they should be. As CK said, way up there in the comments, it's a time of experimentation. We each have to do what feels right for us, but we also need to be aware of the intense competition for our time and attention and what has and hasn't worked in the past to get and hold attention.

Couldn't agree more. I don't like watching videos online, and for content that I'm loyal to, I prefer it in a more portable format (audio -- that I can listen to on the go or while driving).

That said, I love online video as a tool for real-time communication (i-chat on my mac). When it's real time, the low quality and lack of production is not an issue.

This discussion was picked up on a few other blogs that I've noticed, and the concensus seems to swing toward short or no vids.

I just found the answer. Here's how to make vids that everyone will want to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsHPJ0eJilU