3 ms·
i had an account for a few weeks.. followed a few folks. However my assessment is a video has much less revisit value than still images. The nature of a video
by jordache 6y ago
i had an account for a few weeks.. followed a few folks.
However my assessment is a video has much less revisit value than still images. The nature of a video requires much more time investment. Audience has to remain focused on a video for a period of time to achieve full reward. Unlike a still image, where a quick glance can gain satisfaction.
These platforms can not sustain on pure novel content. The model of user engagement must include revisit of content. You see a thumbnail of a video you've liked or have seen before. What is the threshold of intrigue, that will propel you to invest x amnt of time fully dedicated to that video content?
If my opinion above holds true, tiktok will not be a lasting phenomenon. The content will not keep up.
- Drew_ 6y agoNone of these problems your listing are relevant to TikTok at all. You don't seem to be familiar with how TikTok works or how immensely popular is world wide.
- Semaphor 6y ago> However my assessment is a video has much less revisit value than still images. I would say the same, only for text versus images. and yet for some reason I'll never understand besides being only in my early 30ies, people prefer images. and videos even more.
- jordache 6y agotext and videos, I group into the same category due to the full consumption of the content is over a period of time that is much greater than an instant. Consuming text obviously is a much less passive pattern than video, so they diverge greatly in that respect. Images, for the mass consumer audience, require orders of magnitude less time to fully consume. The dynamic is very much different. The Tiktok vs Vine comparison is very apt.. there is hardly any differences between them in terms of the process of content creation, and how compelling they are to a mass market audience