that’s definitely a plus in today’s personal media revolution.

goodbye

and, considering you have no professional background in creating video or even deciding what is “good” video, that’s probably a very safe assumption…

goodbye

The information I quote is actually fact. (And, actually, those numbers are high for TV sites.)

I’d love to hear why newspaper video (such that it is even video) is really on the right track.

Right now, it barely passes as good PBS video… and the last time I checked PBS doesn’t even try to gain an audience.

I looked all over NYTImes for video after seeing Irwin’s post and would agree. There is not ONE CLIP there that should be video. It’s little more than talking heads.

I suppose your measure of what is “good” has nothing to do with gaining viewership?

Please, do tell…

From what I can tell from your “happiness,” the model for success is showing video of things/people that ought not be video with no worry about whether anyone is watching it.

Enlighten me. Please.

It makes me smile.

Everytime I start to worry that TV will wake up and get it before newspapers grab significant market share, I just come to Lost Remote to be reassured that we on the newspaper side have plenty of time, if not forever to get it right.

I’m so happy after reading some of the comments on this post. So happy.

I could tell you, Jim, and others, why you’re clueless without even risking that you’ll have a light go on, but why bother?

I’m so happy.

TERRIBLE!

Why would anyone watch more than 30 seconds of it? It’s just him walking around interviewing people..

It’s not even images that should be video.

Wow… good thing the NYTimes has this all “figured out”

how’s about offering your most compelling stuff in three formats?

audio- if i’m too busy to read or watch.

text- as you say for “scanning a story quickly”

or, full-on video.

the internet can do this you know.

can a tv?

a dead tree?

a radio?

Sadly, they haven’t come close with any of this.

It comes down to what people will ultimately find of use to them. Right now, video clips on TV station websites make up only 5-7 percent of the traffic — and that is using some of the most compelling VIDEO (”show me” video, not newspaper “video”).

So, most — if not all — of the newspaper “video” won’t begin to touch that.

The main test should be: if you couldn’t count on anyone watching it on TV, why would they on the web? Or, why would an audience that is any SIZE that gives you ANY ROI on your production?

In other words, sure, you can get someone to watch your droll “smart” newspaper video. But, get ready for it to be less than 1 percent of your traffic (and HOW much work will you be putting into that?) Think PBS on a much smaller scale.

I haven’t even touched the concept of linear experience vs. non-linear…. Given the choice between scanning a story quickly and watching a video, people would MUCH MUCH prefer to read it — and then watch any supplemental video that IS COMPELLING. (real video, not newspaper “video”)

My favorite line from that dumb article in the magazine was “The medium is too new and unsettled to have anything like a best-practices rule book. ” HA!

Although you could argue, certainly I have in the past, that the newspapers’ aggressive pursuit of online video is smarter than local TV’s slow uptake.

i think “smart people” as well as not-so-smart people will get their web video from whichever source has the best.

just yesterday commenters were telling how their corporate motherships were holding back or cuttingback on their current web channels.

newspapers were taken to the woodshed back when the net was mainly text and were doing just about what tv execs are today. i think they call it living in denial.

but, then again, i’m just one of the not-so-smart.