Seesmic: Still don’t really get it

by Mathew on February 14, 2008 · Comments

Loic LeMeur’s video startup, Seesmic, has finally opened up to the public after being a hot beta invite for some time now, but I have to admit that — while I think it’s great that Loic has managed to raise $6-million from a host of luminaries in the Silicon Valley scene — I still don’t really get it. It’s not just Seesmic either. I don’t get Qik or Mogulus or Ustream or any of those other video things either.

Maybe it’s just that I’m too old (hey, you kids — knock it off back there) and/or too ugly and uncharismatic to get the appeal of video multicasting. Let’s face it, I’m no Loren Feldman. And that’s kind of my point. Most people aren’t Loren Feldman or iJustine or (God forbid) Robert Scoble. Maybe people using Seesmic just want to talk with their friends, and that’s fine. But I don’t see it as being a huge deal, really — or a compelling business, for that matter.

After all, as Valleywag has pointed out, we’ve had video mail-type apps for a long time now. I remember using video chat as far back as 1996, and I didn’t really see the point then either. It’s fun for awhile, but the appeal seems to wane relatively quickly — at least for me, anyway (and apparently for Frederic at The Last Podcast as well).

I’ve said it before — I just don’t think video is as compelling a medium for discussion as blogs are. Video can start discussions or conversations, and Loren’s vlog is a great example of that, but it doesn’t really lend itself to the back-and-forth that makes blogs so appealing — plus, you can’t search it easily, or scan it quickly the way you can with text.

People keep posting Twitter messages saying “I’m streaming live — come chat with me!” and yet I never do. Why? Maybe I’m busy, maybe I just don’t feel like it. The point is, no one ever posts on their blog: “Hey, I’m blogging right now — come comment on my post!” Blogging is asynchronous in that sense, I guess, and that makes its appeal a lot broader, I think. But then again, I am a print guy :-) If you think I’m wrong, feel free to let me know.

Share:

Tagged as: LeMeur, Seesmic, Video

Brian Sullivan

I feel the same way -- I just don't get video blogging in general. I loved the Owen Thomas/Vallyewag quote:

""Video is one of the most inefficient means of communication, suited only for self-important types who overvalue their own thoughts and undervalue the time of those they speak to.""

I have much the some reaction to most audio podcasting. There may be good stuff out there but I just don't have the time or energy to weed through all the crap. If there were better tools to sort it out I might consider spending so time listening (at least audio doesn't require your undivided attention for the whole length of the piece).

mathewi

That is a great line, Brian -- I feel pretty much the same way.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Disqus

Rob Safuto

You don't get it Matthew. The web is now social all because of Seesmic. Just kidding ;)

I think that services that allow more flexibility make more sense. I've been trying out Utterz which allows you to post audio, video, photos and text either via the computer or cell phone. To me the mix of different types of media in commenting is much more interesting than I do a video, you do a video, and on and on. Most people aren't webcam types.

There's also a service/wordpress plugin called Riffly that adds the ability for people to leave audio and video comments directly on a blog. Much more relevant I think because it fits right in with the blog's comments instead of taking you off site.

Loic's company has more competition than they want to admit at this point. If Seesmic wants to be successful they need to expand beyond video and integrate well with blogs and mobile devices.

mathewi

Thanks, Rob. I definitely see the appeal of video in some cases -- I
just don't think there's a lot of those cases, or as many as Loic and
Scoble and others seem to think there are.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:18 AM, Disqus

Adam Ostrow

Agree with you Mathew and the post from Valleywag, and I still consider myself a "kid" :) Video just isn't a very efficient way to communicate, though I do occasionally like to video chat with friends I haven't seen in a while via Skype. Plus, versus watching a video for a minute to determine if I'm going to get something useful, I can read the first paragraph of a blog in 15 seconds and figure out if I want to keep reading. The time adds up pretty quickly ...

mathewi

Yeah, totally agree Adam. Video just seems like something that
requires such a substantial investment of time, and so it's hard to
tell whether it's going to actually be worth it or not until it's too
late.

Mark Dykeman

I see Seesmic as a potential replacement for video conferencing in a business context. A number of people put a lot of value in face-to-face interaction both from a comfort level as well as providing the ability to monitor body language.

However, I see it as being overkill for blogging. I can't image commenting on a blog using Seesmic UNLESS I absolutely need to show a picture. Plain audio comments might be just as valuable.

drew olanoff

If video isn't in a "format", I just don't see it as compelling, and quite honestly, it's a chore to keep up with. I can scan text, I can't scan over video. If people are making 30 second video posts, why not just use twitter's 140 characters? I love iChat for 1 on 1 video chats in REAL time. I get that. Same with Skype for group video chat. It seems like a chore to me to do video. I love Loic's passion, and I respect the group that has invested, but I don't personally get that "Oh wow, this HAS to get funded" feel.

And i'm all about video.

Now that it's not beta, we'll get to see if a real crowd will come in and use it on an ongoing basis. I wish them nothing but the best of luck!

Matt Hendry

Mat I see the value in Quick and mogulus and evelyn ustream because they provide tools that put live broadcasting in the hands of the Masses .

Maybe the problem is your still thinking with your OLD MEDIA head and not thinking forward enough .Im 36 and can see the value in these things

Seemsmic is pretty much niche product but it has a crazy amount of European users .Not that I have a need for Seesmic and I think that's the Issue lies is that you have to have a need to see the products vale .Seesmic might be great if you have friends or family overseas that a a video message is more personal than an email.An I can see the value you in that especially across different time zones,

Eric Rice

Amusingly, one of the big swan songs of podcasting was ON DEMAND! What you want! When you want! Where you want it! No Appointment Based Viewing!! and then everyone toddled over to YouTube *en masse* and put their video in a non -portable format, and THEN, all the live stuff showed up that people are glued to.

Aren't we supposed to hate appointment based viewing? I thought that only television was the only place for video.

Pesky consumers, who do they think they are?! /smirk

luca

While I'm for video services as a new way to broadcast yourself and tell the world what you want to, at the same time I agree that video is not for everyone. My only concern is about the amount of money. I shared my thoughts here http://www.lucafiligheddu.com/2008/02/are-web-2...,
I only think that you can do much more with much less.

Vanessa Williams

I have to agree with you, Mathew--although I'm one of those weird old farts who reads *books* voraciously, so I'm biased towards print as you are. But the fact is that videoblogging has zero appeal to me. I have a camera built in to my laptop and was annoyed to discover I had to explicitly tell all my chat apps *not* to broadcast my image! I mean, my God! I haven't even had my coffee yet! And I have bed head! Bottom line: I prefer to be read and not seen.

But despite the fact that some of us are shy or self-conscious or have self-image issues, I think your point about asynchrony is key. If I'm already chatting with you on IM, I might turn on my camera and make it a video chat. But the critical mass of connections that the Internet enables between people is predicated on asynchronous communication: email, blogging, comments, shared media, etc. Synchronous video comm is a sideshow to all that.

But if someone can make some dough out of it, more power to 'em....

veverkap

I've been on Seesmic for a little while now and, other than making the customary "test" message, I haven't used it and went right back to Twitter. I don't get it myself. I have a webcam so that my son can video chat with his great grandmother in Florida and his grandparents.

I'm not sure I would ever use it for anything else.

George

veverkap, I'm in the same camp. My webcam gets used only when my family overseas wants to see me. Other than that, I explicitly DO NOT want to be seen when chatting or Skyping or whatever. I know a lot of communication is visual, but somehow this never translates over video, only in real life face-to-face situations.

Eric Rice

How do people not get the three simple media types? Text, audio, or video? You read things, you listen to things or you watch things. The people doing it moreso these days are everyday people, whereas it's always been studios and big Official People.

Not getting it = passing a judgement on what people do with any given technology. People who don't 'get' myspace or second life or whatnot, DO actually 'get it' but I believe it's more about making a social prejudice known. You think you're better than them?

Also, where is the video mail thing coming from. Eyejot is video mail (ie., we don't have SOCIAL crammed down our throats). Seesmic would be more akin to forums. Let's at least try to compare apples to slabs of granite once in a while, shall we?

George

ericrice, I think the comparison is valid. People weren't comparing video mail to Seesmic, they were comparing video mail to regular (e)mail, and stating that it isn't more compelling. In the same way, you compare Seesmic to traditional forums, and in the same way, I prefer good old forums.

Maybe it's just me, but I would never comment on this if I could only do it in video; text is faster, more convenient, and (for those in offices) quieter.

mathewi

Eric, I'm not passing a judgment on anyone -- I'm just saying it doesn't work for me. I'm not saying I'm better than those who do "get it," or that they are somehow morons for choosing to do video. I'm just expressing my opinion, the same way you are.

veverkap

ericrice,

I'm not "passing judgment" by saying that I don't get it. I don't get particle physics, but that doesn't mean I'm passing judgment on it. I'm sure it's really exciting to those physicists who work in the field, but I'd much rather spend my time doing what I love.

Seesmic is the same thing for me. I'm sure it's really awesome for some people (there are a number of active "seesmers" on there), but for me, I just don't understand the attraction (I don't get it)

George

Matt, you almost make it sound like Loren Feldman likes Seesmic. Have you seen this? http://www.1938media.com/seesmic-review/

whydowork

I'm relatively young (25) and consider myself on the upper end of early adopter / tech savvy / web dot whatever we're at now and I'm actually surprised that many investors were eager to jump on board.

Part of what makes the Internet tick is anonymity and seesmic takes that out of the equation.

@ ericrice :

I think plain old forums and print like blogs will always be around because people like to scan. It can be tough to get anything out of video (as a medium in general) unless you watch the whole thing.

Just my opinions!
Matt

doughaslam

Mathew,

Thanks for the post-- I have been trying out these video sites, and, being new to video, am trying to fiugre out how i might apply this and the other services. Still not sure, though like rob I have found Utterz more useful for creating simple multimedia for a blog/ Twitter link.

I understand the appeal of live-streaming for events-- if there is a video element. I also understand even the appeal of asynchronous video chat-- if there is a visual element.

This week I have been trying out ooVoo (a buddy is helping to promote them), and that site offers up to 6 live video participants-- I see a business use -- or even a personal use-- there, frankly.

But like I said, still figuring out when/where video makes sense, and when it's not necessary

Eric Rice

I must have some crazy-ass ninja skill, I scan and skim video all the time, especially when threaded. Maybe cuz they have, uh, titles.

I'll pass on almost ALL cooking videos, thanks. And for topics that have interest, I skip through the video via scrubbing.

But see, there's a bigger problem. The 'scanning' culture means that we're short attention span, impatient, and becoming so brief in our consumption, that who knows, we're probably getting dumber.

Combine that with the fact that possibly all of us are just untrained in presenting and getting to the point.

So I'll ask again, is it the tools or is it 'us' that's the problem?

It's a much bigger conversation than this thread, but I did want to point out that I skip, scan, and skim all the time in all media. I'm medium-old. ;)

mathewi

Maybe that's a skill I need to work on, Eric. I find it difficult to skim through a video, and I don't even know what "scrubbing" is. Have to look that one up.

MMG

I have to agree, Mathew. i started using Seesmic about a month ago and have tuned in on occasion to see what people are talking about. Unfortunately, most of the conversations aren't compelling enough to warrant regular visits whereas text blogging requires a real point of view, narrative (beginning-middle-end) and a bit of craft. Videoconferencing has been around for ages (remember CU-Seeme?) and yet I still find it difficult to get people to switch on their webcams for Skype video chats.

That said, Loic is a smart guy who will probably figure out how to boost the entertainment value of non-famous people having disjointed conversations with each other. Some folks like Christine Herron of First Round Capital definitely have enough "flavor" to generate a following but television still does a better job of delivering talking heads (i.e. CNN's "best political team in the universe.")

By the way, I'm a former TV exec producer so maybe my standards for passive, slack-jawed media are biased.

mathewi

Thanks for mentioning CU-See-Me, MMG -- I've been trying to remember
the name of that damn app all morning, and couldn't. I guess that's
because I'm old :-)

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Disqus

ivanpope

everybody except Eric here (hi eric) is stating their position - I don't get it, I won't use it, I can't see how it fits in with things. But the point surely of everything since the start of mass online use is that it's not up to individual arbiters whether things work or not. Some do, some don't. Now, Seesmic is at a very early stage and is little more at this stage than an experiment to see what works, what doesn't. And something works. It's not podcasting (whatever that is). It's not Twitter (whatever use that is). It's not blogging (thank god). It's not video by appointment. It's not realtime video. It's not video conferencing. It's something all of its own, and for a lot of people it works. For me it just works. It's just pleasurable. I haven't really stopped to work out how it fits in to my life - but hey, sometimes you just need to roll with it. So, anyone who tries it and doesn't like it - it won't miss you. And anyone who thinks they won't like it - give it a try.

mathewi

That's a fair point, Ivan. And I am -- despite what Eric seems to
think -- just giving my opinion. I'm not saying it doesn't deserve to
exist, I'm not saying all the people who do "get it" are morons, I'm
just saying it doesn't work for me. But then I wasn't sure that
Twitter was going to work either, and yet I've found it to be
strangely compelling, so maybe I should cut Seesmic some slack.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Disqus

Eric Rice

Mathew, you have a *very compelling* tagline here: "… blogging about the intersection of media, technology, business and the web"

Intersect, brotha! These are important times, we should ALWAYS cut slack. The blogosphere (er, tech blogosphere) is just blanketed with this 'don't get it' or 'don't think, just link!' approach.

I use Seesmic and am kinda annoyed by it actually in comparison to other sites (Seesmic is 1/3 of what Utterz is and Sees is not early at all, it's just a famous product).

That's why I come stomping out all cranky-like, because it's a plea when bloggers I like get all Valleywag-ish.

'I don't personally like it, ergo, it sucks' <-- we gotta knock this off, seriously. We do it so much, sometimes I wonder if we should just go pick up the newspaper. Heh. Not that it's much better, but still. :)

mathewi

Certainly don't intend to get Valleywagg-ish :-)

/me cutting some slack.

antje wilsch

nice comment thread here (esp if Vanessa Williams is on it, that's hot) :)

Especially interesting:
- you can't comment, scan, or make notes on video / hard to easily forward to share (gotta' worry about video formats, players, flash etc etc)
- many people cannot, or will not, watch video at work (!)
- this seems to be ahead of its time - imagine those sci fi movies where the actor sits at his desk and everything is there - big screens, audio, video etc. You can easily turn on/off what you want. Right now it all seems like such a chore and inefficient.
- time savers - difficult to briefly skim a video to see whether worth watching the whole thing like one can quickly do with text
- it's not that interesting watching unattractive people (had to say it!)
- quality takes time to put together - esp on video costs go up (vs. say re-writing and editing text) so the quality vs. speed thing is an issue

nice investment group, although it's still kind of sad to see the same group of people always sticking together for the same types of things....

W^L+

Matt, I agree with you, and I have a little perspective to add. I'm out of town for six months, staying at a hotel in the area where I work. The hotel's free connection is too slow to watch the YouTube videos that family members are always e-mailing about.

No matter how you look at it, video is a high-bandwidth application. There are still a large number of people whose connections are not fast enough to handle video. This means that even for those who might otherwise use Seesmic, anyone who has a slow connection cannot use it.