It is getting harder and harder to click around sites like cnn and espn without being tricked into clicking on a link to some talking head spouting off for 3:00, basically reciting the story that you could read for yourself in 30 seconds if they gave you a text link.

Why? Doesn't video cost them more bandwith? Is it that they want us to spend more time on the site? Is it because they can sell more expensive ads for the videos?

I think that it is a stupid trend, but there must be some $$ behind it b/c it is happening more and more.

Anyone understand the economics of this?

I think that it is a stupid trend, but there must be some $$ behind it b/c it is happening more and more. Anyone understand the economics of this?

I doubt there's actually money directly behind it, moreso just the perception that having video is what everybody wants. It isn't, but that's the perception.

I hate the videos, definitely share your frustration with CNN. I just figured most the mouth breathers out there prefer it.

+1 to the whole idea.

Would be interesting to see how many pageviews they get, and how many people actually watch the whole (or even half) of the video.

I would think it has something to with the fact that the videos are often preceded by ads. Those ads definitely get more views if you're tricked into clicking on them. (And even if you close out the video, they can probably still sell on your click into it)

I despise videos on news sites and such.

Good point about forcing to watch ads. That's probably the answer right there. Another thought I had is that they know they only have a small amount of actual content, so placing in a video stretches that content out longer.

I just went to a talk for campus web developers and assorted admins because our organizational unit wanted to start doing video on its various homepages. Turned out that the main campus webmaster had commissioned a study of how users wanted to interact with video on the web. They put together a really nice set of data after nine months of research with various focus groups.

Know what they learned?

Users don't want video. They don't click on them. If the videos start automatically, it just pisses them off.

The webmaster shared his own analytics data for the main campus portal. Turns out that out of the literally tens of millions of hits a month the portal received, the hits on video content was measured in the dozens.

Our admins heard this whole spiel and essentially concluded, "So, it's not that people don't want video. They want better targeted video."

So they hired a PR firm to help them decide what sorts of videos our students will want to watch so they can put them on their sites.

I just went to a talk for campus web developers and assorted admins because our organizational unit wanted to start doing video on its various homepages. Turned out that the main campus webmaster had commissioned a study of how users wanted to interact with video on the web. They put together a really nice set of data after nine months of research with various focus groups.

Know what they learned?

Users don't want video. They don't click on them. If the videos start automatically, it just pisses them off.

The webmaster shared his own analytics data for the main campus portal. Turns out that out of the literally tens of millions of hits a month the portal received, the hits on video content was measured in the dozens.

Our admins heard this whole spiel and essentially concluded, "So, it's not that people don't want video. They want better targeted video."

So they hired a PR firm to help them decide what sorts of videos our students will want to watch so they can put them on their sites.

LOL, that's so typical.

When I was doing scouting for the top gun draft I noticed this trend. ESPN is particularly awful.

I hate this too, and it's the primary reason I installed NoScript. Streaming is frowned upon at work, and I like to check certain sites. I stopped using nba.com because of this (I want to check box scores, and it would automatically stream highlights from the game).

Yeah it is very frustrating, especially as by far the most news browsing I do is either at work or on iphone. If anyone has an alternative to CNN that still does 100% text news I'm all ears, because I'm just about done bothering with them.

I'd love to see figures on the % of browsing people do either without access to any video streaming or at the very least without access to sound. Seems like these sites are really killing themselves on this.

I hate any website that auto-starts video when it loads.

I also hate ESPN's recent trend of placing video only on a page. No, I don't want to listen to Andy Katz or Dick Vitale talk for five minutes about their predictions. I want to read a list of predictions and be on my way.

http://www.nixalite.com/images/RaccoonTrap1.jpg

http://www.nixalite.com/images/RaccoonTrap1.jpg

http://www.hobo-bonobo.co.uk/topten/images/0812071251209.jpg

I just went to a talk for campus web developers and assorted admins because our organizational unit wanted to start doing video on its various homepages. Turned out that the main campus webmaster had commissioned a study of how users wanted to interact with video on the web. They put together a really nice set of data after nine months of research with various focus groups.

Know what they learned?

Users don't want video. They don't click on them. If the videos start automatically, it just pisses them off.

The webmaster shared his own analytics data for the main campus portal. Turns out that out of the literally tens of millions of hits a month the portal received, the hits on video content was measured in the dozens.

Our admins heard this whole spiel and essentially concluded, "So, it's not that people don't want video. They want better targeted video."

So they hired a PR firm to help them decide what sorts of videos our students will want to watch so they can put them on their sites.

:D

SI

This is a great question, and one that I've been asking myself for at least 6 months, if not longer. CNN is the worst about it. Usually, they'll have 3-5 stories I want to read, but will only have video links, so I just googlenews the general storyline and eventually find an article elsewhere.

On a related note, WTF is up with CNN selling t-shirts with headline titles on them? Who would actually buy something like that? I haven't seen them advertised as much recently, so maybe the response was so minimal they shelved the idea. But aside from Onion-style headlines or purposely funny headlines, what's the point?

So they hired a PR firm to help them decide what sorts of videos our students will want to watch so they can put them on their sites.

Artsy porn?

This is a great question, and one that I've been asking myself for at least 6 months, if not longer. CNN is the worst about it. Usually, they'll have 3-5 stories I want to read, but will only have video links, so I just googlenews the general storyline and eventually find an article elsewhere.

ESPN is starting to get really bad about it, too. :(

On a related note, WTF is up with CNN selling t-shirts with headline titles on them? Who would actually buy something like that? I haven't seen them advertised as much recently, so maybe the response was so minimal they shelved the idea. But aside from Onion-style headlines or purposely funny headlines, what's the point?

You could get the one you posted in the health care thread about Obama's package ;)

SI

With some of these, it's probably also a matter of already having a video segment produced, so they can just post that rather than being bothered with having to have a writer write up an article (and then have someone edit it, etc).

My favorite thing lately was when I had to watch a 30 second ad in order to watch the CC PSA on grenade chucking. Nothing like having to watch a commercial for a commercial.

You could get the one you posted in the health care thread about Obama's package ;)

SI

Yeah, that one would be worthwhile. The random "Alabama prof to cops: 'it wasn't me'" headlines are complete head scratchers.

This is a great question, and one that I've been asking myself for at least 6 months, if not longer. CNN is the worst about it. Usually, they'll have 3-5 stories I want to read, but will only have video links, so I just googlenews the general storyline and eventually find an article elsewhere.

On a related note, WTF is up with CNN selling t-shirts with headline titles on them? Who would actually buy something like that? I haven't seen them advertised as much recently, so maybe the response was so minimal they shelved the idea. But aside from Onion-style headlines or purposely funny headlines, what's the point?

Come on you know you want this headline on a shirt...

On a related note, WTF is up with CNN selling t-shirts with headline titles on them? Who would actually buy something like that? I haven't seen them advertised as much recently, so maybe the response was so minimal they shelved the idea. But aside from Onion-style headlines or purposely funny headlines, what's the point?

I've bitched about this before, but primarily from the "it gives CNN a vested interest in creating witty rather than informational headlines and pushing oddball stories at the expense of real news". It sure detracts from what little journalistic integrity they may have once had.

Follow the money.

CNN spends a lot to put up a web site. Rates for web advertising continue to fall, because no one clicks on ads any more.

So the ads on the videos represent a desperate attempt to gain revenue.

The buzz these days is about gaining value from targeting ads. Google is making a mint doing this. Problem is, no one else is having much success.

There's talk about Hulu and embedded, forced ads in its content. But obviously that's been a total failure, since Hulu is talking about charging for its content.

I think people are scrambling for ideas, and having trouble understanding that if you're active in front of a computer, you don't want the distractions that come from advertising.

With some of these, it's probably also a matter of already having a video segment produced, so they can just post that rather than being bothered with having to have a writer write up an article (and then have someone edit it, etc).

I think the above quote is very likely true. I also think it helps sites like ESPN to sell 'personalities'.

What's the old saying? "Customers don't know what they want, so we have to tell them what they want."

This is still a pet peeve of mine. There is so much information out there that could be presented as text that is instead made with videos.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/video_content.png