A lot of the comments below this are rebutting this point by mentioning that videos are better for learning, or complex tasks. This seems obvious to me. Unless I grossly misunderstand how most people use facebook though, they're not there to watch videos about learning or car repair. They're there to consume content as a distraction. It's right there in the beginning of the quote: "the best way to tell stories..."

In that context, this comment is absolutely spot on - we're not talking about a tutorial video showing how to replace the headers on your BMW. We're talking about a video with a talking head that reads a "story" to you. "Can you believe what the president did today?" (cue outrage).

"It commands so much more information in a much quicker period," is a nice way of saying "video distracts people much more effectively than text."

>A lot of the comments below this are rebutting this point by mentioning that videos are better for learning, or complex tasks. This seems obvious to me.

Video is better for learning? I've participated in many online courses and I have noticed consistently that for a lecturer to convey the amount of information that could be obtained in 1 hour of reading they would need at least 3 hours of lecturing.

The only reason I listen to lectures in addition to reading is for metadata. IE, what do they emphasize. And typically I need to do this at 2x speed or else I fall asleep.

Taking a step back, the idea that learning is about fast data transfer is probably not going to hold up to scrutiny at all.

Learning needs to be data transfer at the speed with which your brain learns, which isn't going to be as fast as it can process data through an existing conception of the world.

You need to consider complimentary data incoming through multiple senses, and data which is better represented in moving picture form.

Id argue it 1) primarily depends on the topic 2) also primarily depends on a specific persons brain 9/10 I hate video results.

For 1 if I want information I don't need logos/animations, I don't need "hello fellow YouTubers", etc.

Event the "repair car" example. Suppose need to make some action to repair a vacuum pump. Unless I just don't know where it is in the engine bay (or some other location/orientation information) what value is looking at anything?

Reading is way quicker than watching a video. Speech is just too slow.

If an informational video doesn’t have a transcript or a way of speeding it up I’m not interested. At work we have a subscription to Lynda.com and while the content is okay, the only way the videos are bearable is to watch them at 2x speed.

Yeah people in videos talk slow. They also do the whole introduction thing.

Videos are good for ads. And videos are interesting I guess if you actually CARE about the guy who talks in it. For information and learning: text.

Agreed, there’s generally a lot of filler and intros for about 30 seconds to a minute of genuinely useful information.

I guess it’s the same as most pop businesses books: there’s about a blog post’s worth of material, padded out with case studies, anecdotes and other fluff to reach the page count.

It really depends. If you're conveying a dance routine for example, text is horribly inefficient, a short dance instruction video can be much better.

I have the opposite for news for example. Essentially, whenever people read text out loud which I could have read myself, I typically prefer reading. Moreso because I can skim through text, and move back and forth to make connections, re-read a part after a new insight or to check if I'd remember it clearly, with video this is quite difficult and tiresome.

Although I do enjoy audio/video played at high speeds, it's much more effortless to listen to or watch double speed video than it is to speed-read. Particularly because most written text is quite information dense and not meant to be sped through, whereas most video is more conversational, less dense, and can be sped up to a point where you can take in a lot of information in an easygoing manner in a short time.

Then there's a unique section of high-quality production material. Here I would say, video can beat most formats, it's really efficient and makes a long-time impression. For example, a $5m documentary with video material for every anecdote, beautiful animated graphs to illustrate every metaphor, every causal-mechanism explored etc, can beat 100 pages of dry text. But it requires tons of effort and resources. On the other end of the spectrum is simple video material you see on television (point camera at talking heads), which is really inefficient (safe for being able to speed it up, but even then... whenever people are reading out loud news or an opinion, I'd rather just read it myself then watch someone do it for me.) But this format is really cheap to produce, it's just a camera and talking heads, but inefficient, I dislike it myself.

“Writing about music is like dancing about architecture.”

- Martin Mull (https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/11/08/writing-about-music...)

This seems inherently contradictory.

Secondly, maybe dance has something to say about architecture. Have some imagination. Judging how others appreciate just makes you look ignorant. This is not a new theme to art criticism.

A few months ago I would have agreed wholeheartedly. I recently had to replace the alternator on my 2008 solara and after finding instructions in text form unclear I found a video on YouTube that made the process extremely easy. Thing is, there were a few tiny details I was able to glean from the video that made the difference being very frustrated and very successful.

It's certainly better at some things, but in general, I think it's a worse platform for conveying information.

- find content within a video is difficult (I'd rather search text) - you're at the mercy of the presenter's pace (you can adjust speed, but that's only part of the story) - sometimes listening isn't an option - sometimes presenters rely too much on visuals, so you have to watch as well - video can't be as easily edited as text, so most people just put subtitles to point out errors (this doesn't help if you're not watching) - less easy to link to additional information than text

In general, unless someone is demonstrating a step-by-step, graphical process, I prefer text.

For complex instructions like vehicle repair, videos can be amazing -- especially with good focus and lighting.

For letting me know what Trump tweeted yesterday, I don't need a five minute video with commentary. Even for protests and marches, a few pictures and a paragraph will pretty much do. Most news I'm happy to just read about.

Agreed. I guess video vs text is like most tools. Use the one that’s the best fit for the job.

i think this belongs to the " colors and bokeh" category. It all boils down to: how can you give the same information faster. For a car repair, a video is much quicker way to show what goes wher. The vast majority of videos on youtube, though, are elongated transcripts read aloud.

> This opinion is hard to swallow. This is not . at . all true.

I used to think so too. Then I saw how my child learns stuff with far greater command of underlying concepts and connections through video and realized it's probably just a function of how I learned to learn or am used to growing up without essentially videos on any topic available on demand.

I have observed that the learning my child acquires through video is actually not "book learning" (the term exists for a reason) but much more nuanced, vicarious and realistic in a way text simply isn't. If fact, my child's goto for understanding something "let us search for a video on YouTube that will teach us how to do X". From an information theory standpoint this also makes sense.

So let's allow for the possibility that our opinions are simply shaped by our experiences of growing up without readily accessible video and reality for our children may be different.

Purely speculation, but I think a well made video/lecture is the best way to learn concepts and reading a concise document is the best way to get information. Videos have richer tools with visual aids and tone, but text is searchable and fast if you know what to look for.

Not all the time. At least when it comes to subjects involving physical things as opposed to software or theoretical subjects, video greatly expands the amount of raw information captured at the expense of total density. It takes quite a bit of control out of the author's hands, so to speak, by capturing far more than the words they explicitly choose to write. When it comes to fixing or building things, for example, this means that video has the potential to capture a lot more incidental information that the author might never think to include like the speed and strength of movements as well as tactile responses that are nearly impossible to describe in a consistent manner.

I think text is better when you already know what you're looking for and video is better when you are still trying to develop an intuition for the subject.

I would argue that for a deep understanding of a system, the best medium is in fact a simulation game that incentivizes you to optimize your way through that system.

For me, I was taught how to learn from reading the course material, and then follow that up with a lecture. Eventually, I could even do away with the lecture. However, in the early 90s, there was a series I saw on PBS that was a visual course on physics. (I’m thinking a WGBH production, maybe WQED). After reading the material followed by the lecture, these videos really made things clear with their visual reinforcement that the classroom could never do.

Like everything in life, YMMV, and everyone learns differently.

Almost nothing especially random video content on ads makes complex use of audio visual aids that would enhance comprehension.

Its simply the same stuff you would put in an article communicated at a fraction of the speed with less editing for brevity and prose because it's much harder to reorder video or reshoot instead of swapping a few words.

It is probably worthwhile primarily because it makes a stronger emotional connection which is to say its a more effective vehicle to deceive and manipulate you.

If you think videos are better for learning value obtained per minute I would be interested in reading the proof and can certainly keep an open mind but I'm not inclined to value an anecdote.

Does he actually believe this? It sounds like a marketing fluff piece that some intern had to make up.

I mean the guy is Facebook VP for Europe and probably knows very well that business reports (for example) are not digested "in a quicker way" if you make a 3 hour video out of them.

Apparently "information" is a euphemism for "attention".

Nicola Mendelsohn is a she. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Mendelsohn

Oh, thanks for clearing that up! Although the name can be either female or male (and is probably even more likely to be female) and the article doesn't indicate the gender I just assumed that it was a guy.

I guess it shows that my perception on the industry is still very much influenced by stereotypes; no matter how much I would like to think that I'm immune to that.

Probably an unpopular opinion here: I personally find that I understand and remember things a lot better if I learn them from video (as opposed to reading text alone). Anyone else like this?

I'm amused seeing these binary words-are-better/video-is-better anecdotes.

It depends on the context, the people creating the content and the people consuming the content. Sometimes video is better, sometimes text is better. It just depends.

When I wanted to learn about (perhaps ironically) bookbinding, seeing videos about it was great. However, for quick reference back at how to (for example) tie a kettle stitch knot, a book is much quicker. Video is not as convenient for skimming or using in a random access manner, and search is definitely worse.

For learning something related to coding, I far prefer text to video, although that may be partly because it is easier to copy and paste into an editor so I can mess with it myself.

I could totally believe that, I'm not anti-video. I definitely prefer it for some contexts. On the other hand, I find it painfully slow for more abstract concepts and I can generally learn far more from a book than from a documentary.

Good video can be better. Most video is crap. The problem is that crap video is much harder to correct than crap text. You can skim a slow article. Much harder to skim a video. Even AI can extract the most important information from a news article. Much more difficult for video.

Video is great ... as an art medium.