Most people either think it's too much work, or they cannot commit to doing video blog posts that take 15 - 20 minutes, and put you on any mobile/laptop screen where an existing or potential customer, joint venture partner, blogger or reporter might wish to find you 24/7/365.
The idea with blogging is to start a data-driven feedback loop that you can fine-tune 'on the fly' similar to the following process the author outlined in the article:
* Capture every idea
* Don’t wait for good ideas – shipping regularly creates quality
* Don’t obsess — publish posts on the 2nd draft
* Watch realtime analytics and heavily polish only the posts which start to take off
Of course some types of startups enjoy viral growth through invites/recruiting, so perhaps blogging is less important for them.
For many startups creating compelling content, syndicating the heck out of it, and connecting with as many people as possible are core drivers of organic traffic growth.
I guess I'm old fashioned but I almost never look at video blogs...for informational value anyway. It might be a great way to communicate the personality/likability of the blogger, but it seems like a really inefficient way to communicate ideas compared to static graphics and well-formatted text.
Imagine if HN were a discussion board filled with youtube embeds for web-cam comments.
You're absolutely right that video blogging is not for everyone, and not for every startup. I also agree that HN would not work as a web cam comment site.
For the right startups and founders with a certain type of DNA video related content (with transcripts and time-coded key points) can be an excellent marketing tactic. Just look at Gary Vaynerchuk - his videos are far from polished, but they are entertaining, and get the job done.
I've been trying to start on videos[1] because I also feel it's got a lot of potential reach. Even though the view numbers are significantly lower on my videos than my blog, I get many more emails and comments about the videos. I guess people respond better to a face and a voice than to text.
It's definitely something I'll be putting significantly more time toward exploring in the new year.
SOME people respond better to a face and voice on video. Others prefer any one of a kaleidoscope of possible engagement methods. That's why it's important to try lots of approaches and see which ones resonate with your market.
Use your creativity folks - your videos CAN and WILL rank on page one with the right SEO (assuming there aren't already 1,000 videos targeting the same keywords).
One thing that's a bit different is screencasts, accompanied by good textual content. A lot of companies have used this to their advantage. Remember the first Ruby on Rails screencast (well, it was a video of DHH's screen during a conference, but close enough). In a few minutes, it succinctly showed the power of Rails much better than textual content.
If you do a video, make sure it's relevant to your content. If all your video is of you talking - then imho it's a fail. As a visitor, the last thing I want to do is have to sit through a video stream which imparts no additional value beyond that which I would have got reading a transcript, and worse, I'm forced to listen at the speed of the speaker, rather than read at my speed.
The other problem with video is that it makes it very difficult to follow the idea that the article author mentions which is release early and then edit/polish later. Some people can present to a camera off-the-cuff and come across polished and succinct. Most can't however and tend to ramble, waffle, make terrible jokes or um and ahh to buy thinking time. Those types of unedited videos are painful to watch.
Which is not to say I disagree with Dan - I agree that video blogging is an untapped opportunity - I feel it's untapped because too many people think they just need to record an unedited 'on-the-fly' conversation or monologue and that constitutes a good video. Until people appreciate that you need to spend more effort on video to get the same quality of blog post as a 'text post', I think video will remain untapped.
I agree that transcripts are mandatory - unless you are a super entertaining person on camera like Gary Vaynerchuk (most of us aren't).
You might think your on-camera presence and videos are unpolished and unprofessional - but that's YOU.
What if that slightly unpolished and rough video you created is EXACTLY the video a potential customer has been looking for? What if even a poor quality video could deliver the exact information a potential lead has been seeking, and answer their exact questions?
I think you underestimate the impact that average quality videos can have on customers.
I do, however, agree with your first point - the video must be relevant - to your content, to your site, to your startup, and most importantly, to your AUDIENCE.
Most people either think it's too much work, or they cannot commit to doing video blog posts that take 15 - 20 minutes, and put you on any mobile/laptop screen where an existing or potential customer, joint venture partner, blogger or reporter might wish to find you 24/7/365.
The idea with blogging is to start a data-driven feedback loop that you can fine-tune 'on the fly' similar to the following process the author outlined in the article:
* Capture every idea * Don’t wait for good ideas – shipping regularly creates quality * Don’t obsess — publish posts on the 2nd draft * Watch realtime analytics and heavily polish only the posts which start to take off
Of course some types of startups enjoy viral growth through invites/recruiting, so perhaps blogging is less important for them.
For many startups creating compelling content, syndicating the heck out of it, and connecting with as many people as possible are core drivers of organic traffic growth.