![The Big Lebowski (Limited Edition) [Blu-ray Book + Digital Copy]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512F90yEqdL._SL75_.jpg){kind=small}
Monday
Jan122009
Why Text Remains King of the Web
Young Urban ProfessionalMy friend Robert Scoble has a problem. He produces terrific videos on technology companies for Fast Company. They're a little long sometimes, but they're almost always interesting.
So what's Scoble's problem? Well a lot. The videos don't generate a lot of in-bound links from bloggers, conversations on Twitter or mentions on aggregators like Techmeme. "None of my 1,000+ videos has ever made it to Techmeme," Scoble said.
He's right. A quick analysis reveals some get no links, others get a couple. However, when he surrounds them with text, it's a different story. Why? Text! It provides context and I suspect for many it's a proxy for the video.
I am starting to believe that despite all the hype around online video, text remains King of the Web. Why text? There are at least five reasons...
- It's scannable - according to Jakob Nielsen users have time to read at most 28% of the words during an average site visit and 20% is more likely
- Three letters: SEO - For all that Google Universal Search has done to elevate video, search results are still largely made up of text and everyone wants better SEO
- The workplace - It's much easier for cube-based workers to read text on the screen and get away with it vs. watching long videos. Watching videos (even work related vids) screams "slacker"
- Mobile Devices - Yes, of course you can put a video on an iPhone. But it's work and requires planning. Text is easier to pull up in a nanosecond
- Distribution - Nothing flies like text. It's so easy to cut and paste it and send it somewhere or to clip and re-syndicate it via email, RSS or social networks
I don't know about you but I love text. Now I have always been a reader. Today I am a scanner. So for me it comes natural.
Still, think about just how much of what you consume and share online remains text-based. Twitter - it's all text. Friendfeed - mostly text, but augmented by images. Facebook - a mix but certainly a ton of text. Even what makes YouTube hot is the metadata and commentary around the vids. So I don't see any big threat to King Text.
So what does this mean? Well, if you're creating video you better pay attention to the text you put around it. Without text, you're dead. You won't be found. Further, if you want to influence you must have a command of the English language and know how to write for the web in sound bites. More on that in a subsequent post. I believe marketers and PR pros are well positioned to succeed.
What's your view?
Reader Comments (77)
" Text is open source, video is mac "
(not a mac fan)
Text that is easily readable is a good thing. Text is here to stay but like ppmartin says a mixture of text, image and video is going in the right direction. Like brings up a good point about text- it is easy to copy and paste and share on multiple networks within minutes. Lastly, this is my first time at your site, I like what I see so I subscribed. Thanks for sharing Leo. :)
-Mig
I am using a video email tool there you could see the response rate and follow the statistics in a neat way. Who has read it, how many time, when, and if the message has become viral and forwarded to other parties. With this tool you could incorporate your brand, graphical profile and your message in an integrated way. As an example, I used it to send out a personal note about one of my new posts. I invited the recipients to comment on it and give me feedback. I got both constructive feedback on the post and positive comments on the media tool itself.
What would you say about talk radio / podcasting shows? I will start a new series of podcast interviews in the near future. I think you could get a great interaction and have an interesting conversation between two parties and your listeners could get something out of it. It is easy to listen at your convenience at home or with a MP3 player when you are on the run.
But certain things can't be explained well with text alone -- how to play an instrument, for example. Thanks to pictures and video online, you can learn stuff that would normally require in-person lessons or at least a set of DVDs. Not only that, but you can learn it for free, and you can learn it while sitting around in your underwear!
Text always helps, though. This is such a timely post for me, since I've made some video tutorials and was just planning out how to include more text with them (for when I finally make more videos). The obvious solution: include a transcript of the video or an article that complements the video, besides just the title and short description like they have on YouTube.
On the original article, I agree that putting a video up on the web is not enough. I own an iPhone and only a handful of video series obtain the privilege of being stored there as a Podcast. For the rest, it is all about context. For example, during CES I followed someone who was continuously updating on the videos he was making and I did watch those when they came online.
Obviously video will never replace text as the main medium for the web, but it doesn't have to. Video has a right to be on its own and the web can do wonderful things for its distribution :)
I wonder what the average age of those of us posting here is? Could it be that there is a bias based on age and familiarity with receiving information using text vs video.
I am a reader... I'm also 42. Just a thought.
I'm keen to keep texting and and trying out video as a marketing vehicle, but not sure which will win the 'race' for eyeballs. I figure there will be a place for both.
As for surrounding with text, it's maybe not a proxy but it provides the signal as to whether or not you will commit to watching the video. Again just a personal habit, text around video allows me to assess quickly if I want to commit to starting that video.
As a case in point I have lots of Robert's videos lined up in my reader to 'get to' at some stage.
As someone who can read quickly, text makes me feel that I have more control over my time. I can scan to see if it's relevant, then decide whether or not to read more. It's quite difficult to "scan" a video.
It bothers me that some people post a video speaking about a topic that could have easily remained in text form, simply because they believe video is more intriguing for "Web 2.0". I'm all for video, but only when the medium is used to enhance the presentation (many of the TED talks come to mind).
That's not to say there isn't a big market for online video. But where entrepreneurs try to use video to replace text, they will always fail.
That said, I've been meaning to add more image and perhaps video content to my blog to increase the visual aspect of the content.
The whole thing is built around the thought that a string of text that has meaning on one "page" can act as a conduit to other text where the same or similar words have a related meaning. That's gotta have some impact, or so one might think.
You may now heap your scorn upon my ignit ass.
While a picture may be worth 1,000 words, it's often a lot easier to write a thousand words than create a single picture. And if you try anyway, and create a an unclear or misleading picture, the audience will probably have been better off with the 1,000 words as well.
On the other hand, a supremely well executed data visualization (especially an animated one) can provide for a far more efficient transfer of information than any number of words - especially if it involves understanding derived from relationships that really must be seen to be understood.
Ultimately, text, video, images, etc. are all parts of a single system, and saying that one is 'better' or that one is 'king' is silly. They all derive their value from each other, and the ability to play complementary roles - each doing what the others can't achieve to produce maximum clarity in understanding.
It's a lot like your sense of space. Blind people can form an idea of how they're situated in their surroundings from what they hear. People with working eyes rely on audio cues for spatial information as well - not as much, since they also have eyes. But still, both have essential roles to play, and living without one or the other is absolutely a handicap.