A couple of days ago, the Spammish Inquisition, which I hadn’t expected, insisted that what I really needed was a video. I argued that if I had one, it would not be well received.
For a vivid illustration of “not well received,” here’s Robert Stacy McCain complaining to a videoblogger:
I’m a super-fast reader. If you were to provide me with a transcript of your 11-minute video rant, I could skim over it in less than a minute and locate the “money quote,” which I could then copy-and-paste into a block-quote on my blog and discuss it. Alternatively, I might decide that your 11-minute video rant is a silly piece of nonsense that should be ignored. Either way, the difference between (a) the 11-minute video rant and (b) a transcript of your rant is that (b) saves me 10 minutes of time over (a), not to mention the time savings between (c) doing a quick copy-and-paste of a quote and (d) having to transcribe your lunatic gibberish.
I don’t know if I’m legitimately “super-fast,” but this is very much like what I do with readable rants.
There are, says McCain, three reasons why someone might prefer to do video over “print,” and he’s not keen on any of them. (You’ll have to Read The Whole Thing for those.)