Watching TV to Learn (YouTube and Research)

Sounds counterintuitive, doesn't it? It did to my mom, when I was a student. But that may be changing: In an recent New York Times article, Miguel Helft described how YouTube has evolved from a video hosting and sharing site to become the second most popular search tool on the Internet. The second? That astounded me. Yes, it recently passed Yahoo (explains why their stock is dropping like a rock, huh?) to move into second place, behind parent company Google. The journalist describes how 9-year-old Tyler Kennedy turns first to YouTube for school research. But why?

I guess the easiest way to explain it is this; think back to grade school… Remember when you’d sit in class, and the teacher would say that during you’d be watching a video that day? Remember how watching a video was somehow more exciting than normal lessons? For some reason, seeing someone demonstrating something on-screen was far more gripping than watching your teacher do it, although I have never been quite sure why (I’ll expound on that a little later in this entry). Whatever the reason, it’s also true for adults, particularly when it comes to subjects people consider complicated. But the more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

In the first half of the 20th Century, folks grew up reading books and newspapers. Then there was a generation that grew up on movies, and then television (and later, cable/satellite). The most recent shift was to the Internet. Now, online video is creating yet another generation in the 21st.

At first, this made me kind of upset. First, because I didn’t have the luxury of Google when I was in school—I had to dig through the annoying Dewey Decimal System, be tied to a desk in a library, and go through a lot of fruitless searches before I found what I needed. Today’s students can easily Google for some information, or text search some digitized documents, which is much easier, and time-effective, and I probably would’ve gotten much better grades if I had that kind of tool at my disposal (people naturally want others to have to ‘earn’ their stripes, in whatever their achievements may be, be it educationally or professionally). Now, instead of documents, are kids these days (blurgh – that makes me sound like one of the “olds”), getting so lazy that they won’t even be inconvenienced to read text on the interwebs anymore? Not necessarily— perhaps it’s just more efficient. Why?

• Video incorporates sound and visuals, as well as text
• It’s short, due to the nature of the technology
• Interactive technology allows tagging and commenting to drive you to more information, text or otherwise

I’ve always said that I wished the Discovery Channel and the History Channel were available when I was younger. For some reason, I can absorb and analyze and regurgitate facts more easily when gleaned from a 1-hour documentary than a 300-page textbook. YouTube does that in bite-size portions, due to length limits imposed (though that might change soon). It allows a viewer to pause for reflection, and rewind for review. And it’s not just for 9-year-olds like little Tyler. Have you ever explained how to do something techy to your Boomer parents or grandparents? Showing them over and over and over again? I used to have to explain how to use the VCR to my mother over the phone. It was impossible. If my mom could use Firefox, at least I could send her a link to demo something visually. Guess I could send it to my father.

Does that mean that text is going to go away? Of course not. The increasing popularity of video doesn’t (necessarily) mean deterioration in the consumption of text and its related formats. It does, however, signal a trend (and you know how us PR people and journos luuurve trends): people are now turning to video not just for entertainment but also for reference.

The main reason that text rules the interwebs today is because of hyperlinks. Linking pages via hyperlinks is what makes the whole thing possible. Hyperlinking video is a bit harder. Not impossible (you can link objects and insert text in videos), but a slightly impractical thus far. It's just not as astrophysicists would call an “elegant solution”. Also, YouTube doesn’t have a great search engine in the first place. But guess who’s YouTube’s Daddy? That’s right: Google. It'll get there...

So there is, and will be a shift. Because video was not practical before, to create or consume, the web was dominated by text. With higher-speed connections and more powerful computers, images began to flourish on websites. Now that video cameras and broadband are widespread, information that is better served by video is getting more action. And because kids like Tyler were born into video, this is just the beginning.

A Postscript:
Interestingly enough, this NYTimes piece helps to justify my previous blog entry – The father of the kid that is profiled in the article writes in his own blog:

“I was contacted by the reporter, who had seen a post on ReadWriteWeb about Tyler’s use of YouTube and wanted to bring the story to the New York Times’ readers.”

Another example of online journalism being picked up by the MSM! To paraphrase what Sean Connery said so eloquently in The Untouchables, “Thus endeth the lesson.”

"But it's only online..."

Over the years, I've been in an ongoing back-and-forth (conflict sounds too harsh) with clients who say they want to embrace "New" (hate that term) Media, but are very much stuck in an "Old Media" way of thinking. You know these clients -- the ones who hear some buzzword and immediately want to get their brand in on it -- whether or not it's possible/correct/etc. For example:

"Can you make me a Viral Video?"
"We need a blog for all our press releases..."
"Let's put our blog on Twitter and then it'll go viral, right?"

Blurgh.

Then there are the others (identities will be hidden to protect the naive), who can think of nothing more successful than getting their brand on a Network AM Show or The New York Times. Don't get me wrong-- there's definitely a ton of value in hits of those magnitude. But these are the same people who completely discount the value of online hits; as if, unless you can 'hold it in your hand', it didn't really exist.

So when I saw this video on Richard Laermer/Kevin Dugan's Bad Pitch Blog (both of whom I unfortunately missed meeting at their party last week), and I thought I'd pass it on.


The Online Media from RealWire on Vimeo.

I've heard the headline of his post ("It was just on the web site, not in print") from countless clients and colleagues and managers. I'm sure you probably have too.

Of course, nothing compares to actually holding a great hit or seeing it on TV. But isn't that really just an ego thing? Granted, my Mom and Dad are probably more impressed when I snag a placement on Good Morning America or the NYT, but which is actually serving the client better? A lot of clients feel just like Mom and Dad, unfortunately, because that's they way they were raised to consume media. They need to understand why an online placement is valuable to their brand, sometimes even more than a print placement (but ideally with both). The video above is a great way to show them the power of Digital.

What really got me, however, was a comment on the blog. To wit:

"I've gotta be honest - if you think a placement in Wired's blog is as good as a placement in the magazine then you're kidding yourself. I certainly see benefit in online placements - they do get (limited) readership, they have hyperlinks that can drive people directly to the product/service and they have SEO benefits.

But, pound for pound, print placement gets us more results than anything. Period."

SERIOUSLY? First of all, leaving "Anonymous" comments is kinda lame --own up to your views. I agree with Kevin's response... Making absolute statements about media relations is *very* short-sighted, and I think discounts the credibility of the comment itself.

As for the comment itself: This is the constant discussion with those aforementioned clients-- what's 'more results than anything' mean? Is it more eyeballs? Not necessarily. How many people actually read a magazine cover-to-cover? Are you absolutely sure that the person read your product's mention? With online, readers are more active -- they may have found your mention via search, or trackbacks to the piece.

In addition, the MSM picks up stories online, and goes online for research, so that placement lives on far longer than the newspaper that is now lining the litterbox, or the magazine that is left in the bathroom. As the video also says, bloggers may pick up the story as well -- and then the aforementioned MSM may take notice. It also has the opportunity to go GLOBAL, which is less likely for a US-based long-lead pub. I won't even go into the fact that the run-up time makes most info covered in mags very old by the time they're published. They're called "long-lead", right? That usually means a few months, at least.

So, once again, how do you quantify "more results than anything"? Are you talking 'impressions' that are an inflated number based upon circulation numbers? Can you directly correlate those numbers to sales figures? Probably not. Or is it just because the client likes a fancy masthead or pretty pictures in a magazine that his boss likes to read?

Rick Sanchez, the Carson Daly of CNN

Wanted to share with you an interesting use of social media by the mainstream media, if you haven't caught it yet…

So, with my current employment situation coupled with current events and my usual media appetite, I’ve been watching a lot of television and catching up on a lot of current events. Mostly news and informational stuff, like the news cablers, documentaries, the blogosphere, and reading the Economist again (really!).

Anyway, CNN’s Rick Sanchez has fascinated me for a long time. Some background: Sanchez used to work at WSVN (FOX, my old employer) and launched the "if-it-bleeds-it-leads" tabloid-TV style that spread over the affiliates of the FOX network and beyond.

So, I’ve been watching his 3-4pm newscast for most of the summer, and I’ve been noticing how he’s been sneaking in little bits of social media each week. Sanchez, a big Twitter fan, has been integrating Facebook, Twitter and SMS into his broadcasts in a fast-paced, FOX-like style. They’ve replaced the news ticker with SMS content, and Rick’s always checking his Twitter and Facebook pages for instant viewer feedback. The play-out should be interesting; particularly how FOX's NewsCorp responds since MySpace is a NewsCorp entity, but not in the right user demographic. As multiple news events have come to bear (market meltdown, presidential election, etc.), these tools’ usage have been become even more pronounced.

Now, he’s hosting a show that may be news television's first integrated social media broadcast. I've been watching it mature as CNN has rolled it out over the past few weeks – it has very interesting potential (and implications) for mainstream media as well as PR folks like myself.

So I Tweeted about it.

And then I tipped Gawker off to it. They wrote about it, actually (how meta!). Perhaps CNN will pick up the story (or this one), like my Charmin project.

So what does this mean to marketers?

This is a great example of Digital media integrating with mainstream media (my original haunt), and my gut says the prognosis is good. The broadcast numbers have not been released yet, but Sanchez's Twitter account has exploded with followers. This program is a good demonstration of the utilization of the technology in a very early version. As the technologies mature, and usage goes widespread, MSM programming can take advantage of the interactive conversation for the benefit of digital marketers’ clients and their public relations initiatives.

As I've said many times before, Digital teams will also need to educate their colleagues on what this emerging media are and best practices to work with them, and embrace for themselves. Personnel that are able to do so across disciplines (Consumer, Healthcare, Corporate) will be invaluable to growing an overall firm's capabilities and insight. It's a technology I'm currently thinking about how to apply to future projects. Digital media, like the technology powering it, is constantly maturing, which will allow the drivers of Digital teams, to not only round out PR programs, but also to make PR firms more innovative and to grow the industry as a whole.

Here's another bit that'll "really bake your noodle", as the Oracle would say... How'd you find yourself reading this piece? Twitter? Facebook? :)

UPDATE: Steve Rubel (MicroPersuasion) has picked up on Sanchez too...

and CV Monologues