Originally I was going to call this post ‘Digital Apartheid’, but upon reflection, that’s probably a little strongly phrased. It would have made the point though.
There seems to be an odd trend I’ve noticed lately whereby website publishers deliberately try to sepearate their video from the rest of their content. Instead, they relegate it to a kind of visual leper colony, where it doesn’t intrude upon good, clean print stories.
Take, Huffington Post Video, for instance. The HuffPo is one of the Internet’s stand-out success stories. According to Alexa, it’s the 116th most popular site on the web. The brainchild of purring millionaire Arianna Huffington, it’s caused controversy by using unpaid bloggers and aggregation to gather some of its content. But there’s no quibbling its success: it was recently sold to AOL for £196m.
So why is all of its video content kept on a seperate page?
Another example is Gawker.tv, and I apologise in advance for linking to it. Gawker used to be formatted in a traditional blog format – it honestly wasn’t much more complicated than the one you’re looking at now. It worked, it was simple, and people liked it. Their new site, however, looks like it was coded by a blind man with no fingers. So once again, sorry for linking.
Now, in the case of Gawker, their main site will post links to Gawker.tv in the event that there’s a good story available. But otherwise the video content remains unconnected with their most popular website. This seems self-defeating; why not just integrate the two sites? Is there some immensely technical reasoning behind this that I don’t understand? Any elucidation from readers would be much appreciated.