Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Publishers Are Making More Video -- Whether You Want It or Not (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the what's-happening dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Mic, a website aimed at millennials, used to employ 40 writers and editors producing articles on topics like "celebrating beauty" and "strong women." Ten were let go this month, with most in the revamped newsroom of 63 now focused on making videos for places like Facebook. Critics have called such moves "100 percent cynical" and out of sync with audience demand. Yet Americans are watching more video snippets online, either because they secretly like them or because they're getting harder to avoid. The growing audience for video, more valuable to advertisers than the space next to words, is causing websites to shift resources in what's become known across the industry as the pivot to video. Americans are expected to spend 81 minutes a day watching digital video in 2019, up from 61 minutes in 2015, according to projections by research firm eMarketer. Time spent reading a newspaper is expected to drop to 13 minutes a day from 16 minutes during that time. The question is whether those trends will sustain the growing number of outlets flooding social networks with video clips. Mic, a New York-based news site founded in 2011, was just the latest to fire writers when it announced its pivot to video this month. Dozens of writers and editors have also been laid off this summer at news outlets like Vocativ, Fox Sports, Vice and MTV News. All of the moves were tied in part to focusing more resources on making videos. Publishers are heading in this direction even though polls show consumers find video ads more irritating than TV commercials. Google and Apple are testing features that let you mute websites with auto-play videos or block them entirely. More young Americans prefer reading the news than watching it, according to a survey last year by the Pew Research Center. But many publishers have little choice.

22 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. No big deal by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just because they make videos (content or ads) doesn't mean I have to watch them. Create away!

    1. Re:No big deal by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because they make videos (content or ads) doesn't mean I have to watch them. Create away!

      Indeed, if it's a video, I don't watch. How many news videos have I watched online this year?

      0.

      If one site doesn't have text, I go to another one that does. Eventually a few media producers are going to realize that there is a large demographic who don't want videos.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:No big deal by FictionPimp · · Score: 2

      And if you think the demand is there for the written word, maybe you should start a company that has that focus. If everyone hates video then you have a huge product on your hands.

    3. Re:No big deal by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      The sooner publishers realize there's a reasonable contingent that won't watch videos, of any type, ever, the better. I personally don't have time for video, nor the emotionally pandering claptrap most talking heads spout these days trying to "lure" you in. The effect on me is to move on whenever I'm exposed to it, even if I care about the topic supposedly being presented. As far as the web goes, I watch 0 videos. I have no 3rd party plugins for viewing content and have disabled the internally supplied ones.

      As an example of how utterly inefficient video is, Dylan's Nobel monologue ran something like 23 minutes on video (according to the snippet underneath the box) but I read the entire speech in less than 3 minutes. I was curious whether I missed something when it came on TV later, so I left it going. Nope, just Dylan speaking at his normal 20 words a minute..... I lost interest as I'd already read it and there was nothing to be gained by watching him drone on.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:No big deal by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      Point is it's all going video and writers are being fired.

      If that's the point, it's simply straight-up wrong. There will always be written alternatives, because the the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various formats. What the article is saying is that the Big Boys are moving to video. That may very well be true, but they're very far from the only fish in the sea.

    5. Re:No big deal by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, we'll see.

      I'm reminded that when radio was introduced, everyone got all concerned that it would be the death of print media. It wasn't, because radio sucks at the things print excels at.

      Then, when TV became popular, everyone got all concerned that it would be the death of print media. It wasn't, for the same reason as radio.

      This is no different. It is literally impossible to replace written word with video -- especially for things like news -- because video sucks at the sort of thing writing is great at.

    6. Re:No big deal by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember a lifetime ago, in a journalism class, we covered the relative strengths and weaknesses of reporting news in print vs in video.

      One of the exercises was to take a news broadcast and write up the transcript for it. It pretty much drive home this little fact: the amount of information in an hour's news broadcast fills about 2/3 of a single page of a newspaper.

      Some stories work better in video -- but all video has serious time constraints, and so in terms of actual information, video (even long-form video like documentary movies) can only ever give you a summary.

      The same hold true for fiction. Movies, for example, are the equivalent of a written short story.

    7. Re:No big deal by Strider- · · Score: 2

      Every medium has its strengths and weaknesses. I'm still pretty partial to radio, myself. One of the most moving/informative moments I've ever heard was from CBC's "As it Happens." The show basically consists of the hosts phoning up relevant people all over the world, and interviewing them at length for the show. It tends to be a mix of light hearted fare (An interview with the guy who won the cheese rolling race in the UK) and more serious items, speaking with an elderly lady who's home was flooded in Houston last night.

      I've only heard it in replay, but back in 1994, they interviewed a Hutu woman in Rwanda during the height of the genocide. They were on the phone with her as she hid in her home as the Tutsi militias knocked on her door. The terror, the descriptions, brought the whole tragedy to life, and was (imho) much more effective than video could be, as it didn't focus on the gore.

      In a similar vein, Edward R. Murrow's report on the liberation of the Buchenwald concentration camp was likely the most effective way to convey what happened. Print would have been dryer, more clinical and sanitized by editors. Film would have focused on the visuals. But Murrow's descriptions were raw, open, and unfiltered. Not only did he describe what he saw, but you could hear the emotion, the anger, in his voice.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  2. Horribly inefficient by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find videos horribly inefficient at relaying information. Maybe it's because I'm a fast reader, or I can skim for certain words. Videos for the sake of entertainment, fine, but for the sake of learning unless it's something highly visual I would way rather read it. If I click on a news story and it's a video I exit out. Not worth my time to consume it.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Horribly inefficient by gachunt · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe it's because I'm a fast reader, or I can skim for certain words.

      This is a common habit for on-screen consumption of information. Few "read" a website, most scan/skim for headings, and read the first 5-6 words of the paragraph to determine if the information they are looking for might be in that area.

      Videos break how users regularly interact with finding information online/onscreen, and it slows down their ability to complete their task (find the information they want), which is why this practice is found annoying.

      Reference: How Users Read on the Web (Spoiler: They don't)

    2. Re:Horribly inefficient by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Video works if what is spoken is also available as text.

      Even if it is, it's still incredibly inefficient. Video has an incredibly low information density -- those transcripts show it: look at how short they are, and how light on information.

    3. Re:Horribly inefficient by PingSpike · · Score: 2

      I was actually thinking the other day the new dictation technology they keep would be best used on how to videos that should have been text directions anyway. I often find myself googling how to do something, avoiding the youtube links and searching for text directions and if there's nothing else jumping around the video. Just scrape all the text out of it automatically and serve that up instead. Basically an auto transcript.

      You could even use some sort of weighting or voting system with the original video to get users to selection stills from the video that represent the step in the directions. It wouldn't be as good as text/pictures from the start but it would be a lot more skimmable which would actually let you find the video that doesn't suck faster if you wanted to watch it.

    4. Re:Horribly inefficient by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hi, squiggleslash here, to give you another insight on why things are the way they are, here to add my 2c to any conversation, on any subject. As always, a lot of things to cover today, but I want to focus on just one comment in particular, and that's from fluffernutter, who writes "I find videos horribly inefficient at relaying information. Maybe it's because I'm a fast reader, or I can skim for certain words. Videos for the sake of entertainment, fine, but for the sake of learning unless it's something highly visual I would way rather read it. If I click on a news story and it's a video I exit out. Not worth my time to consume it."

      Well, fluffernutter, you're not the only one, but there's another factor I think you should consider to, and that's the format.

      You see, when we write, we're typically very careful in what we write, we know the more words about irrelevant topics we add, the harder it is to follow our arguments. We have to be concise.

      Concise

      ...and that leads to an entirely different way of imparting information. Also unlike video, we don't have a single channel, we can impart related concepts, such as ways to encourage people to share our content with others, in graphical form outside of the main body of whatever it is we're trying to communicate.

      Other channels

      ...and that means when you read something, typically you can get it in a few seconds rather than a video where you have to listen to a lot of information that's just completely unrelated to whatever it was you were interested in before you hear what you need to hear.

      So did I give you a useful answer? Hey, if you fluffernutter or anyone else on Slashdot wants to give me an answer, just hit the "Reply" button underneath this text, and let's hear what you have to say.

      Reply or email

      ...and remember, you can check out my channel by going to the word "squiggleslash" just above this comment and clicking on it. Don't forget to friend me for more of my stunning insight and interesting posts.

      Thanks for reading!

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:Horribly inefficient by jafiwam · · Score: 2

      Video works if what is spoken is also available as text. Either on the sidebar with timecode (which I'd prefer) or at least as subtitles. That way you can fast forward through the video to get to the part that interests you.

      Anyone not providing either needn't apply.

      There are a whole army of ADA Compliance lawyers out there eagerly awaiting for the organization that tries to put out video without exact description and dialogue in text as well.

      I am not at all worried about "videoonlyclpyse" happening.

    6. Re:Horribly inefficient by Hadlock · · Score: 2

      I watch youtube videos at 2x with subtitles on, 1.5x if no subtitles and the guy has a thick accent. It takes maybe a full day to adjust, but once you do, you can never go back to 1x video. People spend about half their time thinking about what they're going to say next it's awful once you realize it. Also works wonders for online training courses.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  3. I do hate videos, but... by grasshoppa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mic, a website aimed at millennials, used to employ 40 writers and editors producing articles on topics like "celebrating beauty" and "strong women." Ten were let go this month, with most in the revamped newsroom of 63 now focused on making videos for places like Facebook.

    And nothing of value was lost.

    I really do hate videos though; won't watch them. They're a waste of time for me, as I am able to read and comprehend faster than any video can present the information.

    This is made worse by the fact that folks who make the video seem intent on wasting even more time with intros and other cruft before getting to the subject.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re:I do hate videos, but... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Informative

      They're a waste of time for me, as I am able to read and comprehend faster than any video can present the information.

      While that is true, my objection to videos is that it is easier to mislead with a video. I will give two examples. First, in "Bowling from Columbine" there is a video of a Charlton Heston speech with a cut away to a sign from the audience in the middle...except that it was not A speech, it was two separate speeches. The cut away to the sign was so that the audience would not notice that he was wearing a different shirt in each part of the "speech". They seamlessly combined the audio of Charlton Heston speaking from both speeches with no break in the audio to hint that it was not all one speech. In written text, you would need to put some ellipses in, or some other indication of a break and people would expect you to tell them where the speech occurred. Then if you did not state that it was two separate speeches, they would, rightly, call you out for lying. In the video version, Michael Moore claimed it was an innocent oversight.
      A second example was my first exposure to Alex Jones, now of InfoWars. A friend, knowing I am conservative, sent me a couple of videos from Alex Jones. I watched the first one and at one point there is ongoing audio over various video clips. The video clips LOOKED like they were related to what was being said in the audio...and if they were they lent great credence to what was otherwise a suspect idea. Well, I happened to know what the video clips actually were and knew they had nothing to do with the audio. Just as in Bowling for Columbine the video was designed to make you interpret the audio in a way contrary to what logic would dictate.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  4. Make away by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More and more people are ignoring your bullshit videos. Whether you want it or not.

    Welcome to the free market, bitches. If you don't provide it, someone else will.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Advertisers have too much control by H3lldr0p · · Score: 2

    But many publishers have little choice.

    Advertisers want stats. They want to know every little thing they can about an audience even if it doesn't help them. They can sell the data on to someone else who thinks they can extract the value.

    Why is this relevant to the article? Because videos help gather that info for them. You'll notice, that alongside this rise in video content, is a there's a rise in the amount of hosted content. It can get the demo info by being linked to a Facebook profile or to a YouTube profile or whatever platform is hosting the video. Few sites will self-host the content not because they can't afford it, but because it won't have the same demographic information. What FB has been able to do is to put together a standard format of data to be used by advertisers. That's hugely useful for their datamining efforts.

    Just how useful all this demographic info is an entirely different discussion to have. I don't think it's very useful, at least not nearly as useful as the advertisers think or want it will be.

  6. I must just be old... by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...am I the only one that DESPISES video-delivered content?

    Sure, there are contexts where it's very helpful, like some DIY videos or somesuch.

    But in terms of news or general information on a subject, video content is WORSE than a bloody voicemail: it's linear, it's high-bandwidth, it's usually packed full of ads and crap or front/back stingers that are half the length of the video, and ultimately info-lite.

    --
    -Styopa
  7. Gluttony is not a good thing. by nomad63 · · Score: 2

    At the beginning there was HTML. It was easily accessible for anyone with the simplest of text editors like notepad.exe on windows. Since anyone could put a few lines of HTML code and publish it, almost everyone, and their mother, did... I can still remember the horrendous hot pink background home pages some people created. Or even worse, flashing red marquees, or animated GIFs. Gawd.. more I think, more I get nauseated. What is different today ? Well everyone, and again, their mother, have a smartphone with camera which can shoot video. And sites like YouTube or Vimeo or many other similar sites, provide a platform to publish these videos for free. And everyone thinks that, taking a picture of their dog pooping, is so interesting for the rest of us and I should watch this drivel repeatedly. There is gluttony of resources and people with too much free time in their hands, with the idea of striking it rich like pewdiepie or Justin friggen Bieber. What could go wrong ? And yet we are here...

    --

    __________
    The more I know people, the more I love animals
  8. images by bugs2squash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Videos rank right up there with my other pet peeve - people sending me pictures of text they want me to analyse for troubleshooting.

    They fetched such and such a (huge) URL or they submitted this (huge) query and got such and such an error so they send me a screenshot. Now I have to type the whole thing in to reproduce their issue.

    To top it, they usually resize the image to make it smaller for email so now the text is minuscule and blurry too.

    --
    Nullius in verba