Note to Calacanis and Scoble: Don’t waste your users bandwidth.
March 30th, 2007 by 
bill
This is something that I’ve been wanting to blog about for a while. I actually started a post about this a few times but never really finished. But here I am again thinking about this so what the hell, might as well get it out.
My friend Schlomo asked on Twitter one day, “Why is the Calacaniscast in video.” That’s a question I’ve been asking for a while. I guess the only really good answer to it is because he can. The same can be said for a lot of Scobles videos as well. A good question that anyone that is thinking about doing video on the web is what information do I have to convey that is most efficiently conveyed in video? Or, more simply, why am I doing video and not audio, or for that matter, text? Here is a hint to the correct answer: it’s not “because I can.”
Video is multi channel communication. You convey visual information, and you convey audio information. The creative juxtaposition of the two can be magical if done correctly. If you watch something like the Calacaniscast, or the Scoble Show you immediately pick up on a couple of glaring problems. One is that there is usually very little going on visually (with the exception of Scobles software demos, which is actually a very good use of video). The other problem they are really long—far too long for video on the net. Here is a key difference between audio and video. Audio is a medium that does not require 100% the listeners attention. A listener can do other things while listening to audio—drive, cook, whatever. Video on the other hand, assumes that what you are doing is compelling enough for people to divert their attention away from everything else in their life to pay attention to that thing. Whether the creator realizes that that is what they’re asking of the audience is another matter entirely. The primary assumption of the audience is that “you want all my attention for the duration of this video.” So if you put up an hour long video of you sitting there behind a desk talking to the camera, it’s pretty disrespectful of your audience, in my opinion. 90% of the audience isn’t going to sit there and look at you or anyone else sit and talk. And I bet that the primary demographic of both the Scoble show and calacaniscast has no time at all to sit for an hour and watch them talk about anything—when just listening can be enough. Audio is the multitaskers format. Video demands all your attention.
So basically what we are talking about here is bandwidth—not just Internet bandwidth (and it’s a well known fact that video consumes internet bandwidth at a much higher rate than audio) but attention bandwidth. Don’t waste your users bandwidth, attention or otherwise.
It seems that Scoble has discovered that video can be editied now. That’s a good trend. I think he’s learning. And Calacanis is at least putting forth a slight effort to use some graphics that sort of make the video in his program more useful—but it’s still not fully using video. But then again, neither of these guys have any real background producing video. They’re text guys who don’t fully understand visual communication yet. No disrespect intended here, just an observation—they’re newbies. I wouldn’t try to challenge them in their respective areas of expertise. I’ll never be the business guy that Calacanis is and Scobel is the PR savant. But it’s clear that they don’t understand how to effectively or efficiently use video yet.
So what I would like to see them do is both audio and video. Audio for long form talks and interviews and video only when it’s necessary—when they NEED to show us something. And then keep the video well edited and short. Because I guarantee you very very few people are watching 45 minutes or more of anyone sitting around talking.
Disclosure: all of our shows, Calacanis, Scoble’s and mine, are carried by Podtech.net.
Posted in videoblogging | 
March 30th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
This is been something that has bothered me for a while.
And when you think about it, there is something about most of the heads of new media companies that mirror “old” media companies: the heads of both do not come from a background in visual media. They are business people, accountants, lawyers, et al… I guess the main difference is some of them are text bloggers.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Here here.
I have to agree with you 100%. Nothing against Scoble but I cant sit through his videos. I just dont have the time for them. As you said, he is finally learning to edit and hopefully he will learn more as he goes on.
March 30th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Who says you have to watch the video?
Video in my model is just a bonus for the people who want it. My thinking is most folks will listen to our audio feed and some folks will want to watch video.
There will even be a group that launches the video player for instant playback and multitasks… watching a little video when it suits them.
I do a radio show with a video option–like Imus or Howard Stern or and Mike and the Mad Dog. That’s the model.
… I won’t even comment on the “disrespectful” comment… ok I will: what are you smoking?!? It’s not disrespectful to give people options… go look, you can subscribe to video or audio–I’m putting two CHOICES out there for people. No one is FORCED to do video.
Also, the optimal length of the show is based on the user. My users are hard core folks who like me to go deep with a guest. They don’t want a 10-20 minute experience… they want to go very very deep on issues.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I know you have an audio only feed Jason, but I think (and if I’m wrong I’m sure you will correct me) the default feed is video. At least the feed I subscribed to was the video feed. It wasn’t obvious to me at the time that there was an audio only option. I guess I should have mentioned that there was an audio only version of the show. But I was operating under the assumption that video was the default feed. Again if I’m wrong about that I’m sorry.
I don’t have a problem with long format audio programs. I actually enjoy your show. I listen to (the video) on my ipod. And I think you are an engaging and knowlegeable host.
March 30th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
oh, so now it’s not that I don’t already do what your rant says I’ve always done, it’s that the default is not the default you want!??!?!
come on… open your eyes and look at the page before you fire off a rant that says in 1,000 words that I should do what I’ve always done!!! hello!??!?!!?
you go on this wacky rant saying I don’t know what I’m doing without looking on my page and seeing that we offer folks both options?!?!?!
wake up dude! :-)
March 30th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Umm no. My critique of the video portion still stands. It offers very little value at all over the audio version of the show. Especially given the differential in file size. My point is, if you’re doing video, do it for a reason. What is your REASON for doing video if you’re just sitting there talking? What are you showing us? I’d say the same to Imus, which is a huge waste of video. I mean who wants to LOOK at that? Stern on the other hand at least has strippers.
And I just checked iTunes. Your video feed is the default there. That must be where I subscribed to it. The audio feed is nowhere to be found there.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Also I might add, that this post was not a rant. It was a critique, not personal, not malicious in any way. I actually like and respect you–or what I know of you anyway. And the show is fine –as AUDIO.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
i tell this to scoble all the time. i see no reason for video unless there is something to see. people sitting and talking is not something i need to see more of on a daily basis.
March 30th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Irina: I’ve been hearing the “make your videos shorter” thing forever. They are wrong. Justin.TV proves that. He’s doing 24-hour-a-day videos that are far more boring than what me or Jason are doing yet he has even more audience than either of us. Brilliant! I wish I had thought of that.
Oh, and want to turn a video into an audio-only podcast? Here’s the answer, as modeled by PodTech’s Paul Sherer: http://www.flickr.com/photos/35034363287@N01/360067673/
:-)
March 30th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Yes Robert, you’ve been hearing that for a long time. What does that tell you? My question is, if you aren’t actually doing anything with the video, then why are you wasting bandwidth with it?
Justin.tv proves that a kid with some technology can pull off a publicity stunt. It doesn’t prove that long form contentless video is good, or desirable, or worth anything. Justin.tv is probably one of the most frivolous publicity stunts to come along in a long time. I’m amazed that he sucked anyone in with that bullshit. I give him a month and his audience is gone. And that’s probably being generous.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
what i’d like to see are some real numbers behind what length and type of content audiences want. it’s easy to say you know your audience wants long form video if you have a few very vocal fans who always comment. there may be a shitload of others who prefer shorter form content who might not be as engaged. is it worth blowing them off?
do surveys. don’t we have a fairly accurate way to find out this information from our audiences? advertisers do it all the time. can’t content creators do this in a non-spammy way?
i have to agree that justin.tv doesn’t prove anything here. you can’t extrapolate long form content demand by what he’s doing. justin was lucky enough to be the first to do what he’s doing so people are paying attention. also, people hunger for real “reality tv” which is what he gives people, even if it’s mostly boring stuff. also, it’d be interesting to find out how often people tune in and out to him. is it for long stretches at time? or 10-20 minutes at a clip several times a day? i think that kind of information is where the gold is.
March 30th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
by chance do you also complain about having the option to by 87, 89 AND 91 octane gas?
i see, it’s like a seinfeld bit,
carry on.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:27 am
bill, didn’t you get the memo?
everything has to be video now. it’s the law.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Wow, this really makes me think. I fall under this category of possibly wasting my users bandwidth. I do video because for me it’s easier to talk than to type what I have to say. Never got into the audio because in mind it was for podcasts or shows. Most of the time I just ramble on a topic that is on my mind or on something that happened today. Perhaps I’ll do a survey on my site on what they would rather see more of in the future. I totally see the point of video vs audio. Audio I can listen to while doing something else. And Irina has been telling me for months to keep my videos short and sweet. But I tend to ramble. Thanks Bill.