What V-Blogging is Good For
So it turns out that Tamar Weinberg didn't like one of my videos. Tamar wanted to know "if video was necessary for the points that [I was trying] to get across," and thought that it "would have done much better in the written word with the necessary emphasis."
If Tamar's right, the future of YouTube is grim, but it isn't, so I think that Tamar's wrong. So I've made yet another video to address Tamar's concerns. It's a quick not on what video-blogging is good for. And Tamar, I kept it under a minute and a half this time. ;)
Comments
Nobody watches TV and the libraries are packed too ;-)
Keep on trucking with the video.
Posted by: 45n5 | March 15, 2007 1:16 PM
I'll tell you one thing it's good for, and that's to cut through the clutter.
Last week, there was a situation where NMA Magazine in the UK reported a quote from the CEO of ASOS.com.
A dozen or so bloggers covered it, but only one (me) reported on it with a video.
I just came across coverage from the magazine where they've mentioned the video: http://www.nma.co.uk/Articles/32293/View+of+affiliates+is+theirs+to+determine.html
Posted by: Shawn Collins | March 15, 2007 3:51 PM
Ah, usually with opinionated blog posts, people only way in as detractors. This is great guys, thanks.
What baffles me is that with all the hype around Web 2.0 and user generated content, how does anyone not see the benefit of watching something for a minute rather than reading it. That's it, I have to do another piece on how to vidcast.
Posted by: Chris | March 15, 2007 4:46 PM