To videoblog or not to videoblog
There’s a whole debate going on over on TechMeme about whether or not more people should videoblog.
There’s a lot of opinions out there on both sides, so let’s do a little bit of “truth or fiction.”
1) Mark Evans says he’s not doing it cause it takes more time than doing a podcast. TRUE. But not for the reason you might think. It’s cause the files take longer to upload. An hour podcast can be something less than 20mb, but the same hour of video can be 800 MBs, which can take a considerable time to upload. I find that I can do the same kind of show, though, with the same quality on video.
2) Jon Watson says “To create a videocast you have to have set/studio; lighting; personal appearance; visuals.” FALSE. You don’t need a set/studio. I do my videoshow in geek’s offices. You don’t need lighting (but you do need to be aware of it). You don’t need visuals, although it makes you look professional. Who said videoblogs need to look professional? If someone told you that they are totally missing the point. We’ll talk more about this after my show is up, though. But keep in mind that I wanted a more professional look than is possible with just standard videoblog content.
3) Mathew Ingram and Alec Saunders say “Alec says he doesn’t find video a very good way of getting information across, which is why he doesn’t follow many vlogs — and I would agree.” FALSE AND TRUE. False because there are some things that just require video. Here’s a test. Give me one minute of video or 10,000 words to explain to me what Halo 3 does. The video will beat the text every single time, even if you have a Pulitzer-prize winning author write the words. True because words are far easier to skim, far easier to search, far easier to store, far easier to upload, and generally have more information imparted per minute spent consuming than video does.
4) Alec Sanders says “And conversely, why would I want to turn my blog into just two minutes of daily sound bites?” Translation, he thinks that videoblogging needs to be two minutes each post. FALSE. My Channel 9 videos were regularly 50 or more minutes long and, while some people complained, I really didn’t ever listen to them. It still built an audience of 4.3 million unique visitors in a month. If you want to watch short videos that don’t go in depth I suggest you don’t watch my show (although I won’t always have long ones either, some topics/demos/interviews only need two to five minutes to cover well).
There are a few other things I’ve heard on the street about videoblogging too.
4) You need a professional camera rig. FALSE. Geek Entertainment TV got an audience of thousands per month by using a borrowed cheap camera without good microphones or lights.
5) You need a tripod. FALSE, but I wish it were TRUE. Most video can be dramatically improved with the use of a tripod. But, I watch a lot of videos that have good content even though they are shaky.
6) You need to worry about sound. TRUE. There are few things worse than a videoblog that you can’t clearly hear. Almost all of the complaints about my work come when the audio is faint or obscured by some noise.
7) If you want a pat on your back from other videobloggers you need to have good lighting. GENERALLY TRUE. One trick I’ve learned is that you need to keep the brighest thing in the room BEHIND the camera. Why? Cameras don’t have the dynamic range of your eye, so you need a consistent source of light. Putting something bright behind you, like Andy Abramson here does, makes the video look unprofessional (he is too dark in many parts of this video). Oh, and Andy also makes another common videoblogger mistake: too much headroom. He looks like he’s falling off of the bottom of the frame.
8) You need to keep the camera within three feet of whoever is talking. TRUE (maybe). This is true if you’re using the on-camera microphone, which generally sucks. If you use a wireless lavalier microphone then you can put the camera wherever you like.
By the way, we’re working on “The Vloggies” which is a contest to find the best videoblogs. That’ll be in San Francisco, November 4. Judges are being picked by the community (we all hang out on the Yahoo videoblogger mailing list, this is a great place to get help doing your own videoblog).
My answer to “should you videoblog?” It depends. :-)
UPDATE: Andrew Baron (the guy who does Rocketboom) points out that videobloggers are joining the A list at a very quick rate. THAT is a reason we’ll see more videoblogs.
Powered By 
September 16th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Robert — point 7 — that’s my buddy Andy Abramson, not me. I have YET to record a vlog.
Cheers,
A
September 16th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
In my perspective the main problem with video blogs is that they aren’t adding the the collective knowledge of the internet because search engines can’t read them yet. Sure you can create a transcript like you might with a podcast but it does create a lot of extra work so you would really have to be monetizing it or getting a lot of value from it. I guess the first question is are you talking about companies or well known individuals blogging or one of the millions of personal blogs where people talk about what they ate for lunch.
My answer to “should you videoblog?” Sure if you’ve got the time and it matters to you :)
September 16th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
The question “should people video blog” is as ridiculous as “should people write” or “should people be on the radio” or “should people talk to me.”
In every case, it depends on the strengths of the blogger/writer/whatever, and on the audience. There’s no right answer.
Personally, I won’t video blog until I have something to say that requires video. I’m sure it will happen. And I don’t watch video blogs at all, but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t do it. It just means it’s a poor way to reach me in particular…
September 16th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
i agree. i never asked myself this question. i didnt even really know i was videoblogging until after eddie and i had already taped a few episodes of funny interviews with real web 2.0 innovators. so people will do it if it feels right and it felt right to us. to me, it’s a great way to relate information as well as showing viewers the person behind the company or software or whatever — you can SEE the persond on the video and get a sense of how they speak, move and look. anyway, off to the segway polo match with woz!
September 16th, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Here’s how I view it.
I carry a digital camera with me most times. I have a special compartment in my knapsack for it, and if I’ve got my laptop with me, I’ve also got the camera.
The camera also takes movies. If I see something that fits in my blog that needs motion to capture it, I take a movie. Later when I’m sorting through teh stills and the movies, I review them all. If there’s a good movie in there, I upload it, and link to it from my blog.
Not much controversy there. Video is another way of expressing myself, or documenting something. I’ve done some videos that I’m really proud of even though my blog is mostly writing (and don’t forget audio, the podcasts).
September 16th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
One of my favorite videos is the river in Montana that flows uphill!
http://www.scripting.com/2005/08/12.html#When:5:42:56AM
I never got an adequate explanation of that phenomenon.
How could you do post that without video?
September 17th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Should people breathe? Should people drive cars? Yes or No? Video if want to, don’t, if don’t.
But if you want a wider audience, framing, steadicam’s (tripods are too limiting, imho), good productional values, good lighting, great picture quality, good color corrections, great sound and most importantly great writing and video editing, and even if doing something LONG, make it interesting throughout, not just having those usual Channel 9 sleeping-pills yag on and on.
The recipe is easy, implementation is hard, a daily battle in TV ratings.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:17 am
wireless mike? any recommendations?
September 17th, 2006 at 1:42 am
Should you vlog? Absolutely, if that’s what you want to do. Will I watch it? Almost certainly not, unless it’s sufficiently relevant to my daily life. To watch it, I need to devote time to do so. I can skim blogs while on conference calls. I can listen to podcasts in the car. But if I want to get the information from your video, I’ve got to sit down and watch it - and if I can get the information any quicker way, I will.
September 17th, 2006 at 1:47 am
Alec, sorry about that. Fixed.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:33 am
Video Journalism is the most honest form of Journalism. I’ve found on my Branson Missouri site an amazing response to the video posts I’ve put up.
In one instance several thousand locals were able to view a proposed monorail plan as opposed to 30 people that actually attended the meeting. Before our recent election I was able to interview local candidates, give them exposure and help locals get an intimate understanding of potential officials.
In my estimation, videoblogging has some of the greatest promise of any “blogform” as being a critical contributor to our participation in democracy.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:02 am
Videoblogging probably isn’t for me…
There is much communication that lends itself to using the written word, in some circumstances audio might be better and sometimes there is just no substitute for video.
September 17th, 2006 at 3:09 am
so my own take on this - I listen to and watch a lot of pod/video casts. The big benefit for podcasts is being able to listen on the move (ie walking, running etc) I do however love watching video podcasts and these range from a few short minutes to almost an hour. As long as the information is relevant and keeps me entertained I’ll watch it. I agree howeer for videocasts you need to make the time to watch, podcasts can be picked throughout the day.
At the moment I’m thinking about a video ipod soley for videocasts - I’d love to have some software for my archos to do this automatically but still looking :(
September 17th, 2006 at 4:32 am
Don’t forget to make it eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeasy.
Future vision(WOW I just went to a sight that has a drag and drop function for all the podcasts/videopods you want to download to your pod and guess what? All you have to do is plug in your ipod, jpod, kpod, etc. and it is all down loaded automatically while you catch snippets on the site).
What a wonderful world that would be for the technically challenged folks. Grandpa check this site out and stop trying to set that VCR clock LOL. Grampa fixs clock with single strip of black electric tape. Flashing light doesn’t stop. Just goes away.
Anyone see dollar signs (hear,hear,hear)!
Welcome to the real world Neo. ; )
regards,
Russ
September 17th, 2006 at 4:58 am
robert,
just to clarify my point about production values and video blogging: i think a video blog is more difficult because it has to look good, sound good, feature good content, etc. - whereas a blog post can be quickly hammered out (although good posts have to be crafted)
September 17th, 2006 at 5:05 am
First and foremost, you need content which is appropriate to videoblogging. zefrank. Need I say more.
A 1 hour vlog? Yawn!
September 17th, 2006 at 5:09 am
Hey, glad to see this conversation pop up for the 90 millionth time. Anyway, like we haven’t been doing things with video cameras for years now. Oh no, see, now that it’s in the nerd sphere, we have to be trendy and predictable and diss it. Debate it.
If you wanna be famous and use this technology to be a bad-ass, hollywood-ista, then for chrissake, just DO IT and follow the rules and spend the money and learn the skills.
If you wanna do something personal and true, screw the rules– it can look like ass for all anyone cares.
It’s a one-two punch. If you can do both, well then you deserve to get paid and can stop reading blogs all the way to the bank.
Just sayin’. Now I’m going back into my crankhole.
September 17th, 2006 at 5:56 am
>>>UPDATE: Andrew Baron (the guy who does Rocketboom) points out that videobloggers are joining the A list at a very quick rate.
Will you lot PLEASE ger over yourselves?!!? I’ve been onlie for a QUARTER CENTURY and it was until you bloggers came along that this “A-List” bullshit was ever mentioned. There is NO “blogosphere,” godammit — but there certainly is an EGOSPHERE! And it reeks!
September 17th, 2006 at 5:58 am
With video people often focus on other things–what you are wearing, your hair, your background–instead of what you are saying.
September 17th, 2006 at 6:07 am
[...] Áhugaverð færsla hjá Robert Scoble um kosti og galla vídeóbloggs. [...]
September 17th, 2006 at 6:58 am
“Give me one minute of video or 10,000 words to explain to me what Halo 3 does.”
How about 9 words and no video ….
The same as Halo 1 and 2. But prettier.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:09 am
On the whole production values thing: you can’t (or at least, shouldn’t :) ) video blog in your underwear. So, in terms of complexity, time, resources, etc. podcasting = blogging ++ various complexities, and videoblogging = podcasting ++ again. Surely, and unsurprisingly.
September 17th, 2006 at 7:41 am
[...] Wow! I’m shocked at the meme I’ve been uh skimming/following of people asking NOT to videoblog. Scoble sums up some points here very well. But I wanted to address some of the remarks I have been reading, and honestly I am shocked: [...]
September 17th, 2006 at 7:43 am
[...] with del.icio.us | Email this entry | TrackBack URI | Digg it | Track with co.mments | | Cosmos Click here forcopyright permissions! Copyright 2006 Mathew Ingram [...]
September 17th, 2006 at 8:21 am
[...] Note to self: Scoble on videoblogging. [...]
September 17th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Text blogs and video blogs should be on seperate scales. I mean honestly, would you compare TV ratings to a newspaper circulation? No, you wouldn’t because they are totally different things.
Joel Cheesman once stated to me that you should write a blog with content you would create even if nobody else was going to read it but yourself. I’m not yet certain video presentation even meets that standard. Why? Because people tend to act differently when on camera and it takes so little time to create.
September 17th, 2006 at 8:48 am
TRUE. But not for the reason you might think. It’s cause the files take longer to upload
Partially true, but you left out a ton of other issues:
1) Editing, because there are always going to be parts that don’t belong, like inane chatter while setting up. (Yes, I know you love those parts, but it was one reason why watching channel 9 sucked. GET TO THE POINT ALREADY.)
2) Compressing. That’s not a ten-second process, and you know it.
3) Reviewing after compression. Sometimes things go wrong. Audio drift, etc. So you have to re-watch the post-compression product to make sure it still looks the way you want it too, or that you didn’t accidentally set it on “ass” instead of “small”
Who said videoblogs need to look professional? If someone told you that they are totally missing the point.
They don’t need to have the same level of quality as a pro in a studio, but if they look and sound too bad, then no one is going to watch them. So that’s not really false. You DO need to pay attention to camera angles, sound etc.
FALSE AND TRUE. False because there are some things that just require video. Here’s a test. Give me one minute of video or 10,000 words to explain to me what Halo 3 does.
I can beat #21. What does Halo 3 do? Kill shit. Blow shit up. Loudly.
There, 6 words. You should pick a better example than the best example of why the videogame industry is selling to the same people over and over and over.
My Channel 9 videos were regularly 50 or more minutes long and, while some people complained, I really didn’t ever listen to them. It still built an audience of 4.3 million unique visitors in a month. If you want to watch short videos that don’t go in depth I suggest you don’t watch my show
Oh dear god, you’re equating visitors with people watching all 50+ minutes of those dreadfully boring videos? Could you spin your numbers any higher? Good job Robert, you’re officially nothing more than a PR wonk.
Dude, you are in worse need of an editor than Frank Herbert, and that’s saing something. We all could tell you never listened to anyone, you made the same damned mistakes over and over and over again. Like watching the same “Interview with my family” video, done by ten year old Jimmy at family reunions, and trying desparately to figure out where they store the damned thing so it can meet up with an “accident”.
Robert, seriously…either learn more about the process of filming people, or stop giving advice. Blind leading the blind at the moment.
September 17th, 2006 at 9:53 am
You missed the point, Robert. Why don’t you include all of the relevant parts of my argument instead of just one part that serves your purpose?
Here’s the part that you missed:
“What I mean by ‘visuals’ is that I have to have a reason to be videocasting. Just sitting there jabbering away like I would do on an audio podcast is going to get boring very quickly. In cases like that, there’s no need for the video so I would have to create the need.”
Do you need visuals? No, but if you don’t have them, why are you videocasting? That’s the whole point of the visual medium, dude.
September 17th, 2006 at 10:36 am
[...] El complejo de Hamlet aplicado al videoblogging En: Blogs, Asides — Septiembre 17, 2006 [...]
September 17th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Jon: you’re right, I missed that. In TV lingo “visuals” means graphics on screen. Also, I’ve gotten stuff out of videoblogs even when there aren’t really good visuals.
If I want to learn how someone looks and behaves, for instance, a videoblog is a much better way than even a photography.
But, in general I agree that having a good visual reason to use video makes sense.
September 17th, 2006 at 11:27 am
Somethings are best expressed with video. Here’s my video response to Alec Saunders called Why Alec Saunders Should Vlog.
September 17th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Geez Robert, so many points to counterpoint up there. But I’ll only highlight what I think is the most ‘FALSE’ of your statement.
Sure a vlog will explain how great Halo 3 image will be if compared to ‘dull’ ordinary blog post. But can’t a blog post (text post that is) embeded the Halo 3 video? This way, the page size will be far smaller (because the writer’s rants will be in form of text, not video) and easier to build.
Vlog will be a nice intermezzo into the blogosphere but it’s not here to stay. Just look how long have we have podcast going around but it still can’t catch up with blogging (despite several pundits claimed podcast will, someday…)
September 17th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Oskar. Yes. You can embed the in a blog post. That is what videobloggers do. Videoblogging is not necessarily an alternative to text blogging; it’s just an expansion of it. You aren’t throwing out text just because you want to link to some video.
September 17th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
I feel that to use Video Blogging or VLOGGING as is often used, it truly depends on the purpose. There shouldn’t even be a debate about this to be honest. If using video on your blogsite makes sense, then by all means use it. It shouldn’t be measured by the difficulty, but by whether or not it makes sense for your viewers as well as the content on your site. Besides, vlogging is not that difficult to do. And it should be fun, not argumentative. In addition, sooner or later “the haters” of vlogging will have to realize that the future of the internet is going to be VIDEO, if it isn’t already.
Good Topic Scobleizer.
MB
September 17th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
[...] Robert Scoble takes on the vlogging naysayers in To Videblog or Not to Videoblog. Like a lot of things, the shortest and most accurate answer to most of the negative observations (it takes more time than podcasting, it’s more expensive, etc) would be: it depends. [...]
September 17th, 2006 at 7:46 pm
So many comments on this not even sure I should bother.(Almost wishes he had this many comments on any of his posts)
The way we present ourselves to others is unique,because each person is different and therefore in cyberspace this presentation of ourselves should also be so.
If everyone was the same and acted the same what advantage would that be for anyone? I believe such a thing would severly limit our growth as a species.
The meat of life is how we are the same butthe desert is how we are different.
AXE
September 17th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
[...] I just finished reading up on Scobleizer and the referenced vlogging meme of last night. Two things became very clear to me as the vlogging controversy unfolded in my netvibes window. [...]
September 18th, 2006 at 12:17 am
[...] Scoble on videoblogging. [...]
September 18th, 2006 at 4:27 am
[...] In this particularly very useful post, he agrees and disagrees with various pre-set opinions on video blogging. Makes for a very intersting read. [...]
September 19th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Hi Robert,
I met you a blogher during the videoblogging workshop and you gave me a few video shooting tips and I’m captured them with the mpeg setting my digital camera. I’m new to videoblogging and work with nonprofits. I’ve hesitated in even trying to video blog because of my misconceptions about difficulty.
However, I’ve decided to explore and edited that clip into a short how-to flick
http://www.netsquared.org/blog/kanter/to-video-blog-or-not-to-video-blog-0
September 19th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Video bloging is also good for shareing the things
September 19th, 2006 at 10:39 am
[...] FYI: Yesterday’s 21st Century Document video was created using the Beta 2 Technical Refresh (B2TR) of the Office 2007 system. For more info on B2TR of the Office 2007 system, check out: Review: Microsoft Office 2007 Beta 2 Technical Refresh PC Magazine Office 2007 Beta 2 Technical Refresh Adds UI, Performance Improvements eWEEK CNET editors’ take for Microsoft Office 2007 beta 2 (technical refresh) Mary Jo Foley’s Office B2TR post Elizabeth Montalbano’s Office 2007 creeps toward release post The 2007 Microsoft Office system preview site Also, for some interesting takes on video blogging check out Robert Scoble’s To videoblog or not to videoblog post, Drew’s Technorati Top 100 Invaded by Videobloggers, Jon Watson’s OK, I’ll Play: Why I Don’t Videocast, or Mathew Ingram’s Video-blogging isn’t for everyone. Along these lines, I’m eager to hear what everyone thought about yesterday’s video/demo. I am completely open to suggestions. Let me know… Jonathan Bailor Published Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:25 AM by wrdblog Filed Under: video [...]
September 19th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Seeing Things A Little Differently
Low cost prodcution can actually BE the message… watch this!
…
September 20th, 2006 at 8:21 am
[...] There was a bit of a kerfuffle recently (a kerfuffle is a little smaller than a brouhaha) over whether v-logging or video blogging is worth it or not. I wrote about it here after Alec Saunders brought it up, and everyone from Jeff Pulver to Robert Scoble has weighed in on it over the past week or so. Lots of discussion about whether video is the right way to get certain things across, is it too much bother, etc. [...]
September 23rd, 2006 at 1:53 am
[...] The discussion on how to videoblog is very active at the moment. Robert Scoble has put some of the main topics in his weblog together. [...]
September 24th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
[...] I was just reading Scoble’s post - To videoblog or not to videoblog, and it got me thinking about *casting (I’m trying to get ahead of the pack here - Apple’s cracking down on people using the word Podcasting, so I figure that ‘*casting’ covers video-blogging and audio-blogging). [...]
September 25th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
I find that for most vlog, the image is not very interesting. Poor quality and it does not *show* anything or contribute to the understanding. If that’s the case, I’d rather have audio. It’s more convenient: you can listen to it in the car, while jogging, shopping, in the metro, anywhere. Video requires more attention.
I don’t want imply that video is bad, just that if one does not prepare visual aids or otherwise take advantage of video, then audio is a better solution IMHO.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:13 pm
[...] 5) Thinking of videoblogging? Here are the pros and cons. [...]