Maybe if you have an 'always brilliant' internet connection it's not so disheartening but waiting for huge files to load, then stop, then load a bit more, and repeat is no fun. Nor is it fun to use mobile phone data to watch a video that gives the same info as a one line blog post with a couple of photos.
Having never made a video I don't know if there is a way to use a smaller file size in the way you can have a low-res image for the web but I'd like to think there is a way so viewers are not left waiting for the file to load therefore reducing the chance further of anyone actually watching it. And getting me to click on any video that is over 3.5 minutes long is going to be tough as that really is my limit. Many suggest just 3 minutes is the optimum length for a video and I'd certainly be a lot more likely to watch a whole online video if more followed this suggestion.
Emails with the subject line: "You have to watch this, it's so funny" can only be spam or from a school-age relative as the awkward loading time is always followed by disappointment that those minutes of your life can never be regained as you watched a cat 'dancing' in fancy dress or a dog falling off a surfboard in some hideous form of digital 'You've Been Framed'.
Possibly, producing a video may be quicker and more spontaneous and make sharing more instant than taking photos, editing them and writing accompanying text. I can see how a video could sell a product/destination, etc as you could see it from all angles and explore around corners but I can do that with Google Street View if I want to see a new place or I can read a selection of reviews if I'm considering buying a new product.
I have been known to use YouTube just to listen to songs but not to watch the videos. That way I can leave it to load for a while and then come back to it later and play it while doing something else.
I heard a speaker at a technology event state that by 2015 video will be 90% of internet traffic. Unless broadband is going to be dramatically better worldwide I couldn't see how this could be true so he explained that video will probably be 4-5% of the page views a user clicks on by 2015 but those pages will take up 90% of the time people spend on the internet. Didn't I say video was a time drain at the start of this?
I'm not the only one who doesn't love the way online content is so keen on video, see: Three reasons I hate video content. And this video blogger reckons video producers have 20 seconds to grab your attention and I think he is along the right lines as 'viewer abandonment' is high with statistics finding that 20% of viewers abandon an online video within the first 10 seconds. While online video content is increasing rapidly is it really as engaging as video producers like to think it is?