Written content is still my favorite online

Posted by on . 6 comments.

These are going to be some dangerous confessions from a new media guy.

While we should try to make cool, new features, we should always keep an eye on what is useful. Written content is immensely useful. It can be viewed in a variety of formats, even mobile, and when written well, it delivers a form of immediacy that video, Flash and other online content cannot.

I suspect my preference for written content is not that far off of what the average Internet user feels either. It helps explain why 57 million Americans read blogs in 2006, while 50 million Americans still buy daily newspapers.

Now, when I say written content, I mean much more than just standard journalism writing with an inverted pyramid (And a lot, lot less feature ledes. Please?!?). I want writing with immediacy, impact and focus. A lot of what appears in newspapers does not fit that description.

One reason I love tech blogs like TechCrunch, Silicon Alley Insider and Engadget so much is that they are not encumbered by the legacy of journalism. Their posts are written with an amazing sense of immediacy, and their headlines are clear and concise. I can get in and out within a matter of seconds.

That’s news I can use in a fiber optic world. I’m a RSS loving, Google Reader using, on the go kind of guy. Do you really think I have time to watch video news reports?

Speaking of video, I can’t remember the last time I watched a newspaper video clip. Why watch a video at NYTimes.com when I can watch one at CNN.com? Although, often I just want to read CNN’s stories, instead of watching their long videos.

Even short videos take time to watch. So, they better be good and often they aren’t. With a written story I can get the gist of the story in under 10 seconds. I could never say the same about video content.

I confess, I’m not a big fan of Flash. I think some newspapers have hitched their futures to this technology for unclear reason. At it’s worst, Flash makes a user experience worse by causing users to wait for some slow loading content that has serious accessibility issues that adds nothing to a Web site. At it’s best, Flash be can an incredible, interactive info graphic or database-driven story.

Most uses fall in between. The problem with using too much Flash is that it is a resource hog. I keep around an old computer so I can do usability testing. Yes, I have a Core 2 Duo Macbook, but that’s not what the average Internet user has, and we should always keep that in mind.

Flash has an uncanny way of tripping up my older computer, especially when I have multiple tabs open on my browser. There is also another rule of thumb that newspapers have a hard time following: If it can be done with a standards-based solution, it should be.

Far too many times I see Flash used on a newspaper site, when the same could be done with CSS or javascript.

Now this doesn’t mean there isn’t Flash content I like, because there is some that really gets me going. There is also Web video I like from news organizations. But it is to say that written content is still king.

This doesn’t mean we can keep writing like we have for decades in newspapers. It means we have to rethink written content on the Web. Many of the top blogs have the right idea.

  • http://webstainedwretch.blogspot.com Alex Parker

    I wonder if any studies have been done on reader habit w/ regards to video. I think some video is cool. I really like the ones from the Chicago Tribune, and I’m getting better at making mine for the LJWorld, but I wonder who’s watching them…and if anyone listens to newspaper podcasts.

  • http://webstainedwretch.blogspot.com Alex Parker

    Um, forgot my point…some video is cool, but it is hard to figure out what a lot of stories are about. You’re right. You can get the gist of a print story in 10 seconds. Not always the case w/ video, which is why it needs to be either incredibly compelling or entertaining. Not gratuitous.

  • http://wmhartnett.com/ William M. Hartnett

    It’s incidental to your point, but as I mentioned at Jeff Jarvis’ post, there’s a difference between the number of newspapers sold and the number of times newspapers are read. The way I read that 57 million figure, it represents the number of Internet users who in 2006 said they had ever read blogs. I suspect the number of American who have read a newspaper at least once in their life would be well above the roughly 120 million people who still read one on a typical day. Not that any of that changes the obvious trends, but getting the math right is important, eh? :)

  • http://www.patthorntonfiles.com pat

    @Alex,

    I’m going to try to find some studies that look at this. I think video has to be viewed as a tool in our bags as reporters, not the main tool. A lot of newspapers are putting too much time and energy into video and not enough into just making a more relevant Web product.

    I know I listen to podcasts, and I’m not alone. I think the average newspaper, however, does podcasting pretty poorly. I wrote a post awhile back where I describe podcasts that work.

    @Hartnett.

    Excellent point. If I don’t feel lazy later today, I might edit my post.

    The figures are tangential to my post at best. It would be better if I could find a study documenting what people like to view online as well (comparing video to written to audio to Flash to database to etc). I suspect people enjoy viewing newspaper video less than newspapers want to believe. Whether that is an indictment of video or newspaper video remains to be seen.

    I do watch a lot of video on the Web at places like Hulu and YouTube. Outside of CNN.com, I almost never watch journalism-related video on the Web.

  • Pingback: The Journalism Iconoclast » I do watch video online, just not newspaper video

  • Pingback: Newspapers websites lack for love; you can help