Communication mythbusting - live presentations versus videos
Summary
Recorded video is worthy competitor and often a better alternative to live presentation. Not only does the research bear this out, but it also makes common sense, if you step away from common biases. When it comes to moving people to action, or closing a sale, live presentations could be more effective, if presenters follow the fundamentals of audience empathy, storytelling and effective design.
I take communication seriously. You can argue that the fundamental premise of this website is effective communication in teams and companies. And since I have strong opinions, I’m starting a series of posts called “communication myth-busting”. In each of my posts, I’ll tackle some common myths or generalisations and provide a nuanced perspective, based on my experience and what the research says.
Today, I want to tackle a misconception about audio-visual communication. My most recent role involves AI “evangelism”. I’ve found that a large part of this advocacy business is to show-and-tell people how AI tooling can help elevate the quality of their work, or help them achieve better work outcomes. There’s only one of me in this role, so I use short videos to convey my ideas. Create once and share many times, as I’ve explained several times on this website.
The other day, I was speaking to a colleague who made a provocative point. Here’s a creatively edited version of their comment.
“In-person or Zoom presentations beat recorded videos every single day because they’re more interactive.”
I’m sure it’s obvious that I disagree with that emphatic assertion. So, let’s start my new series busting this myth! First, let me share some opinions.
9/ 10 presentations or demos needn’t be live.
Ok, that’s another emphatic statement, isn’t it? Well, I’ve got some authority to back myself up. In 2011, Salman Khan gave a TED talk about how video could reinvent education. The talk was about his story of building Khan Academy and flipping the traditional classroom model. The most significant insight, however, comes in the first three minutes of the talk, when Khan talks about how his first students, his cousins, responded to the tutoring videos he uploaded to YouTube.
“They told me that they preferred me on YouTube than in person.”
Now that we experience the creator economy of YouTube and TikTok, Sal Khan’s insight is easier to appreciate. Videos are forgiving teachers.
You can pause, rewind, replay, or revisit videos, without the fear of offending the presenter.
You can watch videos in your own time, at your own pace - from 0.5x to 2x.
If you're bored, you can skip the content in part or in full.
None of this is straightforward in a live presentation. Sal Khan shares another significant insight, early in the fourth minute of his talk.
“The very first time that you're trying to get your brain around a new concept, the very last thing you need is another human being saying, "Do you understand this?" And that's what was happening with the interaction with my cousins before, and now they can just do it in the intimacy of their own room.”
If you watch the video further, Salman explains how online video helps us break geographic boundaries and get feedback from a wider audience than a live or in-person talk ever will. But Sal Khan isn’t the only expert advocating for recorded videos. Gary Reynolds, who wrote the book on effective presentations, also believes that we must pre-record most presentations. Why? Well, this brings me back to the assertion we started with.
“In-person or Zoom presentations beat recorded videos every single day because they’re more interactive.”
If interactivity is what we’re after, then the synchronous interaction should be less about conveying information, and more about converging on a decision? Or about moving people to action? Remember the ConveRel quadrants?
Oh, and here’s a bias that often makes good presenters feel that their live presentations will beat recorded versions “every single day”. It’s called the “peak-end rule”. If you’ve ever delivered an excellent presentation, you’ve probably seen people engaged throughout the talk. Your audience may have even given you a rousing ovation. That response gives you an ego-boost. You judge the impact of the talk, based on how you felt at the peak and the end, and not by how much you changed people’s behaviour with your presentation.
Your audience isn’t immune to the peak-end rule, either. Audiences rate an enjoyable session with a punchy end highly, even if it didn’t make an iota of difference to their lives. They’ll even recommend it to others.
Enjoyment and efficacy are different things. Audience reactions and a presenter’s gut-feel about their performance are poor predictors of a presentation’s impact.
All this said, here’s my nuanced opinion.
“If you only seek to educate or inform, choose recorded presentations and produce these recordings well. On the other hand, if you wish to sell, secure funding, or arrive at a high-stakes decision, you could make a short, live presentation, as part of a larger, more interactive process.”
Opinions aside, let’s move to facts. What does the research say?
To educate, choose recordings.
If we only argue over opinions, we won’t get anywhere. I conducted some secondary research to find out what academic papers say about recorded and live presentations. I’ve omitted stats and data from companies with vested interests in proving one point or another.
| Recorded video | Live presentations | |
|---|---|---|
| Production costs | Recorded videos can have a higher up-front cost, even if those costs pay themselves off through scalability and accessibility. I couldn’t find conclusive data about this point, but I can say from experience that a decent-quality, 5-minute demo video can take an experienced creator 8-16 hours to create. The median cost, not including tool licenses, is about $1000 per five minutes. |
Live presentations, however, cost more than the mere cost of planning and producing the content. Here are some recurring costs that can add up fast.
|
| Accessibility |
Recordings allow us to
reach broader audiences
.
Features like closed captioning, transcripts, and adjustable playback speeds that make content more accessible to people with hearing impairments, learning disabilities, or those who are non-native speakers of the presentation language. |
NA |
| Consistency and scalability | As you may expect, recorded videos contain the same content for everyone, with little or no variation, and can reach a large audience. | NA |
| Psychological commitment | NA | With in-person presentations, it’s harder to give into distractions , like social media or email. Presenters gain a higher psychological commitment from their audience in these settings. |
| Educational efficacy |
Most learners prefer pre-recorded videos
over live lectures due to their flexibility, convenience, and effectiveness.
Another study from Malaysia
echoes similar sentiments.
Recorded content leads to better group performance amongst students. An analysis of 105 randomised trials found that recorded videos improve learning compared to in-person lectures. Another study found no difference in efficacy between recorded role-plays versus live role-plays. Similar research addresses the clinical part of medical exams and legal research . |
However, for complex topics, while learners may appreciate the blended learning that results from online video, they may
prefer live or in-person events
.
Lower performing learners benefit the most from live sessions . That said, the efficacy of pre-recorded video is comparable to live, interactive displays even in complex domains such as cataract surgery and dental education . Blended experiences that combine recordings with live events could lead to the best learning outcomes . |
| Sales efficacy | NA | There’s some evidence that supports our intuitive understanding that live engagement can boost sales . |
If you find this summary of research underwhelming, so do I. There isn’t enough evidence to prove what I think may be true for live presentations.
To seduce, go live!
I think it’s safe to agree that live interactions don’t beat recorded videos “every single day.” My bias (lacking evidence) is that, the peak-end rule notwithstanding, live presentations have a seductive, almost gravitational appeal for many of us.
Imagine any of your intellectual idols. Wouldn’t you love to see them live, even if you know that you may not learn anything new beyond reading their books, seeing them online, or listening to them on a podcast?
How about your favourite artist? Isn’t there something special about seeing them live? That concert or that standup comedy show in a packed hall - aren’t they heaps better than videos on YouTube or an Amazon Prime special?
You could extend this thinking to several other experiences we want to enjoy IRL - a courtside tennis match, a seat at a chef’s table, or, at a more humble level, a professional conference. They beat the pants off a recorded highlights package of the exact match, a home delivery of the same food and video recordings of talks at the same conference.
So, yes, I see the point my colleague was making. Live presentations can be superior to recordings, but under some conditions. Here’s my advice.
Choose emotional impact over sharing information. The information you share in a live presentation should only be a contrivance to building a relationship with people, and using storytelling techniques to connect to their deepest emotions.
Recordings don’t allow you to interact with the expert or other viewers. Design the live interaction so it’s all about such interactions. Consider breakout sessions in an educational setting. If you’re a noted expert, consider using only 30% of your allotted talk time, so the remaining 70% can go to live Q&A.
Videos are a one-size-fits-all experience. Live interactions can be specific to the audience you’re meeting that day. How about tailoring your message to what your audience cares about? For example, don’t do a generic demo if you're a product salesperson. Instead, customise your demo so it’s relevant to the problems your prospective customer is facing.
Where possible, resist the urge to conduct a real-time demonstration. Rolling up your sleeves and demoing real-time, makes you look macho, but it also leaves you prone to mishaps. A lot happens in a real-time demo that may even detract from the point you wish to make - processing time, intermediate steps, and whatnot. Instead, choose pre-recorded, shortened sequences, embedded in your live presentation that support your narrative and drive people to action.
Be open to detours. If you design your presentation to be slide after slide of uninterrupted talking, your session is better off as a video. Go back to reading what Sal Khan’s cousins said about him. But, if you are open to interruptions and interjections, if your stories can be non-linear, and if you can vary your media and give your audience time to react, that could make them say, “Wow!”
All this is easier said than done, though. Most of us regurgitate a canned set of slides or a canned demo in front of live audiences. Such presentations pale compared to their recorded alternatives, especially if the recording has a reasonable degree of polish. The cost of coordination is not worth the live experience.
As I conclude this mythbusting piece though, I don’t want it to feel that I’m beating down a proverbial strawman. Just as a one-way, death by Powerpoint is the worst kind of in-person presentation, there are ways to mess up recorded video. Take, for example, a lazy Zoom recording of a rambling voiceover on a wordy slide deck or slideument. Ugh!
But bad videos have a superpower that bad live presentations don’t. You can’t speed up, slow down, AI summarise, or skip a live presentation — at least, not as easily as with an online video.
This superpower is no excuse for making poor online videos, though. Instead, think how the superpower extends to good, video versions of good, live presentations. You can replay, slow down, study chapter by chapter, a good video. That’s impossible with a live presentation, however extraordinary the session may be. And no, recording a live presentation is never a viable alternative. Put in the effort to “purpose-build” videos for an online audience, from scratch.
Thankfully, tools like Loom and mmhmm simplify video creation considerably. Addy Osmani provides a free browser-based recording tool to speed up your production workflow. And if I’ve convinced you to consider recorded videos an essential tool in your communication arsenal, check out the async worker’s guide to audio and video. I’m sure you’ll find some helpful advice there.