Someone much wiser than I once told me that a successful business either has to create value or transfer value. So, sticking with that assumption, much of the argument to date about the benefits of virtual tours versus video tours has focused on the value created. To be clear, we'll use the term, "rich media" to refer to both video and virtual tours.

Virtual Tours And Video Tours Offer Essentially The Same Level Of Created Value From The Viewer's Perspective

Created value can be based on two constructs: 1) the inherent value to a viewer in terms of showing a property and 2) the tangible and residual value of the product created for the seller or agent.  Let's assume that property focused rich media has an inherent value equal to the quality of display. The rich media also has a residual value equal to the cost of production before the property sells but a residual value that nears zero after the property is sold (much like the drunken sailor, what will we do a sold property video?)

Most video tour providers have arguments based on created value (GenX/GenY expects a certain type of media, video provides a  more ealistic portrayal, blah, blah, blah) Let's take a unusual tack - for a video provider anyway - and let's assume for a moment that video and virtual tours create more or less the same value for the viewer of that content. I'll define "value" as meaning that the viewer can glean some idea of the property from the comfort of their connected computer in order to make some basic decisions as to their level of interest.  If any type of rich media creates interest, then the value created for the viewer is the same.  

If the created value for the viewer is the only factor in play and perceived to be the same by the seller, then the lack of tangible value in virtual tours is of little consequence when other factors are considered such as cost, ease of implementation, etc. In this case, virtual tours win hands down if only created value is considered since the focus an arguments are only around point (1) and do not consider the process of actually delivering your rich media content to viewers (transferred value).

Transferred Value Lies In Delivery Of Content

Let's consider transferred value for a moment. Transferred value can be fleeting but highly effective. It takes into account several factors: 1) the value associated with ability to distribute your content via different means 2) the value of your branding and 3) the value of the audience to which your rich media is distributed.

 Let's take a simple example that demonstrates a case of almost 100% transferred value with no direct cost of creation: Google Pay-Per-Click Advertising.  There is almost no created value for a google ad other than the 5-10 minutes that you spend creaing your campaign and actual ad. All of the value is in the delivery or transfer of the text content. That transfer value is actually limited because it cant be transferred outside of a Google property, a Google partner property, or a participating website.  Users hardly consider that when there no cost of creation, there is also nothing to keep. When the user turns off their campaign, they have nothing tangible to use elsewhere. However, the branding for viewers that do not click on a given ad and the value of the reasonably targeted audience is the true transfer value for Google PPC program.

Video Rules The Transferred Value Roost

There is almost no comparison when comparing video and virtual tours around transferred value. First, video can be transferred to many different online and offline formats (TV, DVDs, web sites, iPods, etc.). Video also carries your branding no matter the format and finally video can be easily syndicated to general or niche audiences. I have not even touched on the transfer value of the language aspects of narrated videos.

Virtual tours once created tend to be limited to a single provider as virtual tours often only exist in the memory of a server as they are created. Your means of transmission consists of a single link or player that often is carrying someone else's brand. Your audience is most often limited to the strength of your own contacts as with any cut and paste approach to video distribution. 

Like Google, the total costs of video advertising can be quite low on a per view basis when there is significant transferred value even when the cost of creation is factored in as a single fixed cost. This isnt even counting that video can be reused in other mediums in adition to the medium for which it was produced.

Several virtual tour providers are already converting their tours to video specifically to address this gap in transferred value. The best arguments for video over virtual tours remain in the transfer value area until we can address the issues of production costs or cost-shift as vidlisting.com has done to a pricing model based on video views. We'll get there...just as the virtual industry had many of the same issues a few years ago.

Tony