Im not sure where I heard this analogy, but i loved it.
There is no better way to describe the difference between online video and TV than as snacks and meals.
Online video is the snack. Its short, its typically very familiar and easy to find, grab and digest. You grab a video snack when you have a couple minutes at home or at the office, or when you are bored and have a craving to do something, anything. Anyone can put together a snack.
If you try to make a meal of a snack, it becomes obvious it doesn't have the substance that can sustain a steady diet. Plus snacks are so simple, they are easy to get bored with.
TV on the other hand, is the medium that you will sit down and make a meal of. TV programs are a product that like a meal at your favorite restaurant, or your favorite recipe, you look forward to. TV programming is the meal that we make an appointment for. That we prepare for. That we set the table for. TV programming is the meal that we have high expectations for. If its not well prepared, we won't eat it again. Fortunately, because of their long history, we trust the chefs enough to come up with something new and bring us back to the table. (Even if we don't want to admit it)
Personally, snacks can be fun, but meals are much more fulfilling.
Snacks and Meals - The difference between Online Video and TV
Recent Posts
- Beating Google ? (5/14/2008)
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Yeah, but any good meal takes a while to cook. If you take the time to download a movie ahead of time, and find/subscribe to some service that allows you to download as opposed to streaming it, you can have a full HD movie in hours. However, it can't compare in ease to streaming On Demand cable.
Posted at 1:15PM on Feb 21st 2007 by M
3. so simple, yet so correct.
Posted at 1:46PM on Feb 21st 2007 by drew olanoff
4. perfect analogy. thanks for sharing mark!
Posted at 1:53PM on Feb 21st 2007 by marc
5.
Using that analogy, does that make seeing a movie going out to a restaurant?
Posted at 1:54PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Daryll Strauss
6. Mark, I'm a big fan of yours, but I hate this analogy.
I guess my problem with it is that it doesn't clearly indicate what's being compared. Is it comparing content (amateur film making vs professionally produced programming)? Or mediums (internet vs television)? Or is it attempting to create a hybrid comparison of one of each (which is like comparing apples and oranges)?
I'm confident you can come up with a better analogy than that.
7. Isn't this analogy more about the delivery means than the product?
What does this make bittorrent, a free meal?
Posted at 2:04PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Adam Cains
8. I guess I still don't really understand this argument. Why do I need high quality video of some kid dancing to some lame song in his living room (YouTube)? I really don't see the need for high def or even dvd quality content for that stuff. It looks just fine the way it currently is.
If I want high quality downloads online I can just use iTMS and watch a movie or TV show in near DVD quality and again it looks great on my 32inch LCD already. Plus, once I start downloading I can start playing the movie or show within about 5 minutes while it's downloading, so I really don't see why Mark is going on about this so much. Who needs to see home video of someone in high def online? I also thought iTunes was rolling out 720P video quite soon.
I think this is blown way out of purportion. Sure if you want to watch pirated shows and movies online YouTube isn't the best option since the quality isn't that great, but then again those shouldn't be available like that in the first place.
For me the current quality is just fine for me to add stuff to my blog etc... I don't expect people to sit down and watch movies from my blog. It's simply a quick way to add decent quality video content to a site or blog and make a point.
I also think there's nothing wrong with the current format of TV programming. Sure the total on-demand thing sounds great, but we pretty much already have that with DVR's and Tivo. Plus I remember a post by mark that was something like "Online Video to TV, Shouldn't it be the other way around?" Not unless you're just planning on using it to pirate shows and movies and put them illegally online.
Bryan
9. Where do clip shows like the stuff on VH1 fit into the mix? That's basically "snack" food with no real beginning or end. 24 hour news isn't that much different. You can tune in and tune out at any time in the same way one snacks on videos online. But it's even easier because you don't have to click.
10. I think the analogy works well -- but perhaps only for older generations. Back in the day, people used to sit down at the table for three full meals per day ... but today's kids are content to slurp some Go-Gurt on their way to school and grab a slice of pizza for dinner while they play Madden. I think the new generation will grow up satisfied with YouTube snacks sprinkled within their diet of online/interactive media content.
Posted at 2:28PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Miss Gossip
11. I agree with this but I think someone will find a way to make Online Video dominant over TV...I know this has happened in the past with other examples...(can't think of them right now)
Posted at 2:28PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Cory
12. Thanks for the news flash.
We (the average consumer) are still subject to the trickle down effect.
Not everyone has HD TV or high speed internet.
We (the average consumer) still eat no matter what the quality of poop we are fed.
Quality content is another topic. Everyone will read a three caption comic in the newspaper. Just to get away from Anna Nicole Smith POOP that tricles out every single day!
Gotta go, ANOTHER news flash.
Someone just shaved her head.
Posted at 2:46PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Gary
13. Not sure this is where you saw it, but the economist posted a similar analogy a couple of weeks ago:
"And in contrast to the “lean-forward” context of “snacking” on a YouTube clip in one's cubicle while the boss has stepped out, TV is a longer and more relaxed “lean-backward” experience."
(http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8670279)
Posted at 8:58AM on Feb 22nd 2007 by JAZ
14. Hey Mark, when are you going to be the man to introduce digital cable television where the customer can choose which channels they want. I know the technology is there. I pay so much per month for 100 channels, and there are only about 10 that I really want. Come on now, you can do it.
Posted at 11:00AM on Feb 22nd 2007 by Steve
15. Mark,
Are you going to the South by Southwest (SxSW) conference next month? If so can I buy you lunch and talk about webvideo?
Here's a link to my musings on webvideo on my company's blog:
http://www.echoditto.com/blog/54
Posted at 11:41AM on Feb 22nd 2007 by Jason Rosenberg
16. I don't know why so many people took offense to your analogy. I thought it was pretty good. Not bullet-proof, but you didn't intend for it to be.
Posted at 2:17PM on Feb 22nd 2007 by basketball coaching
17. I agree, great analogy.
- Internet video is for a lack of producing, writing and money being spent - a waste of time. To be honest, 90% of american's favorite shows
- have had millions invested to make them ''good'' -
- have writers, producers and actors.
- Online video sharing of TV content, might someday work...
- but user created content, so going to peak soon and then slowly decline to 80% of the capacity
-Rbowles
Posted at 2:50PM on Feb 22nd 2007 by Pallet Rack
19. Mark - Would agree that TV is the preferred viewing medium but would love to have the content choice that online sources offer... Today we have to accept whatever trash is presented ... be it news, shows, sitcoms or even sports coverage. Would love to have the ability to create a personal viewing menu that captures and presents tailored content from global TV sources.
Posted at 6:38PM on Feb 22nd 2007 by doncorleone
20. Video, produced and distributed through ANY channel can work, with higher production values for video (vs. TV) and a curating role (so far bungled) by online networks. Consider comedy: many shows and films without demanding production values can be very funny.
In the 70's, filmmaker Woody Allen demonstrated this better than anyone. He knew his niche and made films that worked for it. He was one of the first independent producer/directors before the so-called independents of today. He always made money making films that cost about $6 million on average. There was a network of smaller, "art-house" theaters to distribute through. Today, there is a similar opportunity for video, as a diverse distribution keeps expanding.
Mark is right, people have always made appointments to see drama and that's where the primary opportunity remains. 5 minute shows work in their context, and that context is limited. The time it takes to perform a drama - play, film, TV show is fairly consistent back to the Greeks (sure there are a few variations). Larger, "appointment setting" screens are still the main venue for drama and events in the home , whatever the pipe.
Unlike many technologists today, technologist Howard Hughes understood that it's about the drama, and that takes getting your hands dirty. You're never going to "scoop" up valuable dramas and comedies from podcasts. Buying more low denominator reality programming from small production houses is stale idea. What is needed is a new structure to develop real programming that doesn't cost a lot. It's probably not going to come from Hollywood, but could come from almost anywhere.
Posted at 11:26PM on Feb 22nd 2007 by Nicholas Quixote
Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry: inappropriate or purely promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
1. I'll be the first to respond...
I LOVE your blog, but... did you smoke crack today?
Posted at 1:02PM on Feb 21st 2007 by Eddie