 |
|
Thursday, April 5, 2007
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
Blogging vs. vlogging
Garance Franke-Ruta posts her thoughts on the matter: The biggest difference between consuming vlogging, which I do rarely, and consuming blogging, which I do continually, is that you can get the compressed product of a great deal of time and thought on a blog, but not in a vlog. For example, if I spend six hours on a blog item, or even just one, that a reader can consume in five minutes, they are getting the benefits of all the time and effort I put into it. But a five minute vlog will most likely provide only my thoughts as they exist in real time, or perhaps even only a note of skepticism as conveyed by a raised eyebrow, and no articulated thoughts at all. Five minutes with a blog can yield you six hours with a mind, but five minutes with a vlog will usually get you five minutes with a mind, or, sometimes, a face. The overall number of thoughts consumers will imbibe per minute is much lower on vlogs than on blogs.I wouldn't disagree with Garance so much as suggest that she's leaving something out of the equation -- I suspect most people consume blogs very differently from vlogs. To consume a blog you actually need to read it, which implies that you've given it top priority among the things your conscious mind is processing at that moment. Vlogs, on the other hand, can be consumed more passively. Yes, you can watch your screen as a bloggingheads segment plays. And, certainly, there are small snippets of video that will command one's full attention. On the whole, however people will treat a vlog the same way they treat the television or the radio -- it can be on in the background while the consumer is consuming other things. UPDATE: Kevin Drum thinks I have it ass-backwards. Andrew Sullivan has a fine collection of links. posted by Dan on 04.05.07 at 01:43 PMComments: To consume a blog you actually need to read it, which implies that you've given it top priority among the things your conscious mind is processing at that moment. Vlogs, on the other hand, can be consumed more passively. Not really. If I listen to a vlog passively I don't glean anything and always decide it's been a waste of my time. I'd say getting anything out of them requires more attention than with blogs. TV can be watched passively because it doesn't require thinking. Also, I can have 10-12 blogs open at a time in different tabs, along with whatever else I'm doing on the internet, and I can skim them, discard the uninteresting ones, and reread things. It's true that you can't get up and do something else, but in the sense of being at your computer you can certainly be doing other things as you read blogs, and only "tune in" every now and then (and do so to greater effect than with vlogs). posted by: Mike on 04.05.07 at 01:43 PM [permalink]kevin's right, at least from my experience posted by: chris brandow on 04.05.07 at 01:43 PM [permalink]Post a Comment: |
  |