Two weeks ago, I was in front of a crowd of learningprofessionals who face a harsh reality: Their best attempts at employeetraining and engagement will never be as interesting as Game of Thrones, nor as fun as Angry Birds, nor as relevant to meas my Instagram feed. This was not shocking to anyone in the room, but thepoint was this: In a never-ending battle for employees’ mindshare, we must dobetter if we’re going to compete with the noise, distraction, and infiniteentertainment possibilities made available by today’s technology.
As a speaker at the FocusOn Learning Conference & Expoin Austin, I had the opportunity to talk with training directors, curriculummanagers, education specialists, LMS administrators, and every other “doer”that makes the learning industry what it is. On display and under discussionwere the newest and most innovative training tools, technologies, andstrategies available in the market today. The theme that stood out the most: Usingtechnology in a clever way to accomplish more with less.
I was impressed by the open and collaborative nature of theconference. Attendees were actively sharing ideas, techniques, and lessonslearned to help each other improve and reach a common goal of engaging theirusers and achieving better results with their training materials.
Given that, it’s no surprise that interactive video was apervasive topic across the conference. However, like many other adopters ofinteractive video, conference attendees were unsure about the differencesbetween different formats, and weren’t even sure where to start.
My session aimed to help attendees understand how they canfind success with interactive video by selecting the solution that fits theirneeds, and by discerning the gimmicks from the game changers. To do that, oneneeds to start at the end of the story: the user experience.
“Cool” isn’t necessarily better
Interactive video was born in the marketing space where new,cool, shiny things are valued because they get people talking. In the eLearningspace, that doesn’t get you very far. You need users to really engage with yourcontent, and to make that happen you need to respect what the user wants—experiencesthat are better, faster, and easier.
The difference between gimmick and game changer comes downto two basic questions: Does the technology solve a real business problem, anddoes it create an experience that is inherently better?
Gimmicks are new, cool, shiny technologies with littleintrinsic value—they are tech for tech’s sake. They’re cool because they’renew, which (in the short term) can drive user engagement because people likeshiny things. Over time, though, will users continue to interact with thetechnology as that luster starts to fade?
Game changers are lasting solutions that fill a realbusiness need and create a better user experience. They should also have anaspect of cool and shiny, but that’s not their sole value.
Interactive video is a very broadcategory
As is the case with all new categories, it takes a while forpatterns to emerge and for subcategories to coalesce. We’re in the middle ofthat process with interactive video. Each type has its strengths andweaknesses, but some seem to lend themselves to gimmicky applications, while Isee others as game changers. Here aretwo examples.
Right now 360-degree video is really hot. You’re able tolook around and feel like you’re living the experience. Gimmick or gamechanger? It’s immersive, and you feel like you’re there. It can be a visceral,emotional experience, and users are entranced by it. However, as the noveltystarts to fade, I think it will start to lose popularity. There may be someapplications where the immersive nature of 360-degree video solves a realbusiness need, and it might be a game changer for that application, but ingeneral it’s a cool technology that falls mostly into the gimmick column.
What about video that you can navigate by answeringquestions posed to you by the main character? It’s a very new and coolexperience to have the video itself talk to you and respond to your inputs.Gimmick or game changer? In terms of allowing the user to navigate through alot of information quickly, it has the same advantages as the web, but it’seasier than reading text on a page and is more engaging. And the contentproducer can capture valuable information about their users based on theiranswers. So choice-based interactive video is a better, faster, easier userexperience (and it fills a business need). Game changer.
User experience matters
Your content’s user experience is vital for drivingengagement and affecting behavior change. I’ve heard people say that theirtraining content doesn’t need to be as interesting, fun, or relevant as mediaor marketing content because they have a captive audience. If participation ismandatory and compliance is guaranteed, why bother with investing ingame-changing content?
My response is that employees who just check the box andcomplete trainings are not necessarily learning or absorbing anything. And ifthey’re not absorbing the content, then what are you achieving (aside fromfulfilling arbitrary training requirements)? Will safety metrics improve? Willturnover drop? Will employees feel more engaged and connected to the company?
If you’re investing in training content, make it work foryou. If you provide employees with compelling and relevant interactive content,you’re offering a highly rewarding experience and thereby building equity withthat employee. Employees start to feel grateful to you for sharing inherentlyinteresting and worthwhile content, and they become more likely to engage withcontent in the future. This cyclical pattern continues to pay dividends overtime, ensuring your organization wins more and more invaluable employee mindshare.
