Web video beyond the video

Alan Schulman has written a brilliant post over at Online Video Insider. The key paragraphs:

In this new world of “engagement” metrics, time spent “discovering” through features like the narratives of online video actually equates to more time spent, higher CPMs for publishers and richer information delivered to “viewsers” (the combination of “viewer” and “user”).  And those are metrics that translate to better results for brand marketers.

Now that’s no excuse to make users work to find the video play button.  What it does suggest is that, as we continue to integrate linear video into the static user experience, do we need to acknowledge that there are, in fact, different user mindsets for different types of content — and which do we put first? 

It's not surprising that such an insight had to come from the advertising world, where media is understood wholistically and not just as a way of delivering content. Editorial people can't help thinking in terms of content and how to get it in front of audiences; and technical people think like dilligent engineers, always expediting the process by which people get to content (the 'navigation' or 'discovery' process). But what counts is the overall experience, the entire flow of screens and moving images you go through in a session in front of your PC ot TV set: that is the new content, and it is through it that the relationships between publishers and audiences are built.

Raymond Williams was the first to notice this, when back in 1974 he introduced the concept of flow in the TV experience. The schedule came to be seen as a cultural form, and schedulers (or programmers) were recognised as supreme creators. What people do with television is not watch programmes: they watch television first, and programmes second. They do this in the context of everyday life - fighting boredom by day, relaxing by night - and this dictates what kinds of content are appropriate. Failing to see this is like trying to understand town planning in terms of construction materials: not wholly irrelevant, but hardly a satisfying perspective.

What is happening now in the web is yet another step in the same direction. The more that web video is based on short-form content, the more relevant this is. As we begin to consider the experience as a whole, the focus has to be not just on the flow, but also on the wider context in which it fits: the ergonomics, moods, time of day, etc. Everything counts: how you were sent that email with that link, what you were doing when you got it, where you were, how much time you had.

It is because of this that attempts to replicate the web video experience with new appliances or within a walled garden are tricky businesses, no matter how good or abundant the content, or how good the navigation. The practice is just not the same, and it is the practice that people want, not the content.

This is not to say that new practices can't be invented with the same content as web video. But getting that right will take time, many false starts, open standards, and a new medium with a plurality of publishers. Creating a new practice is an uncontrollable social process. In the meantime, the safest bet is to opt for only gradual changes, and replicate the web video experience in new devices. As Steve Jobs said recently, what people want on a mobile phone is the web, not a mobile web.