Interactive Content: The Good, Bad, and Wicked Cool

If interactive content is so versatile, powerful, and immersive, why don’t all content efforts incorporate these techniques? For starters, interactive features can be more expensive and time-consuming to produce than their static content counterparts. Yet, this isn’t always the case: For example, some interactive elements – like quizzes, polls, or heat maps – can easily be generated with the help of online software tools and templates.

In addition, some of the most innovative or tech-forward interactive techniques may require specialized coding and design expertise to develop and deploy or specific equipment to create and manage – resources that not all marketers have at their disposal. Again, third-party software and services may be able to shoulder some of this burden; so brands looking to “go big or go home” should carefully consider whether it will be best to build or buy the capabilities required.

Then there’s the user side of the equation. Interactive features often have longer load times than simple text or static images do, which can suck up more bandwidth than your audience may wish to devote to your content. Not to mention that some features may need to be optimized for use on a specific browser, device, or platform, which can create a frustrating or disappointing experience for users who are accustomed to accessing content in any way they choose.

Source: contentmarketinginstitute.com

CT for examples of interactive content. They’re right: slow load!

 

marketingIO: One Source for All Marketing Technology Challenges. See our solutions.  

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Scoop.it and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.