Reading time: 14 minutes
From text to video in training: when it makes sense and when it doesn't
You have a 40-page health and safety manual. An onboarding PDF that nobody reads cover to cover. A product guide so dense your sales team summarizes it on the fly. And someone on your team has suggested: "What if we turned it into video?"
The short answer is: it depends. The useful answer is what you'll find in this article.
Converting text-based training to video can multiply the impact of your internal learning programs. But not always. There are scenarios where video makes a real difference and others where text remains the better choice. Knowing which is which will save you time, budget, and a few headaches along the way.
Video-based training is gaining ground because retention and engagement data back it up, and AI tools have dramatically lowered the production barrier.
This isn't a passing trend. The growing interest in training video responds to hard data on how people retain information.
Research on audiovisual retention shows significant differences compared to plain text. According to data compiled by Viostream, visual content retention sits around 80%, while non-visual information retention rarely exceeds 50%¹. On top of that, 77% of participants in a University College London study preferred video over reading written materials².
The current state of L&D adds context. 78% of companies plan to apply AI specifically to training content creation³, and average spending per employee on training reached $954 in 2025⁴. Organizations are investing more, and they want formats that justify that investment with measurable results.
But there's a number worth paying attention to: 46% of employees admit to multitasking or speeding through training videos, and 49% acknowledge not paying full attention to mandatory training⁵. Video isn't magic. If it's poorly designed, the result is the same as an ignored PDF, just more expensive to produce.
Video delivers real value in onboarding, procedural training, distributed teams, regularly updated content, and compliance.
There are situations where video adds something text simply can't replicate. These are the clearest ones.
Onboarding needs to convey culture, not just information. Video creates an emotional connection that text can't match.
An employee's first days are critical for integration. It's not just about transferring knowledge, it's about communicating culture, tone, and values. Text does a mediocre job at that.
A welcome video featuring the CEO's voice or a team lead creates a connection that a document can't. Many companies use AI-powered video creation platforms for exactly this: scaling onboarding without losing the human element.
Anything that involves demonstration, sequence, or movement is learned better through video than by reading written instructions.
If you need to teach someone to assemble a part, use a software tool, or follow a safety protocol, video has an objective advantage. A study published in BMC Medical Education found that students who learned clinical procedures through video performed better in practical exams than those who used text⁶.
Anything involving movement, sequence, or visual demonstration transfers better on video. A technical manual describes what to do. A video shows it.
Video ensures the same message reaches 50 or 5,000 people identically, without relying on each trainer to repeat it word for word.
When you have 500 people across five offices, message consistency is a real problem. Every time a trainer repeats a session, the content shifts slightly. Video eliminates that variability.
Arteche, an industrial company with teams spread across multiple countries, standardized their training under corporate criteria using AI video platforms. The content is recorded once and distributed to everyone, with the option to translate it into 40+ languages automatically.
With AI tools, updating a training video takes minutes, not weeks. Rigidity is no longer an argument against video.
One of the classic arguments against video is that it's hard to update. That was true five years ago, when updating a video meant re-recording from scratch.
With current AI-based tools, modifying a section of a video is as fast as editing a paragraph. COCEMFE, for instance, cut training content production from days to hours with this type of platform. If your content changes monthly or quarterly, smart content tools make video viable, not a burden.
Nearly half of employees don't pay real attention to mandatory training. Well-designed video with interactive elements can change that.
This is probably the scenario where video is most needed and worst implemented. We already mentioned it: almost half of employees don't genuinely engage with mandatory training⁵.
Compliance text tends to be dense, legalistic, and boring. Video, if well designed, can make digestible what would otherwise become an exercise in patience. The key is combining visual format with interactive elements that sustain attention and allow you to measure who has actually consumed the content.
Text works better for reference documentation, theoretical content, communications that expire within hours, and technical audiences who need to control their own pace.
Now for the part most articles on this topic skip. Because yes, there are scenarios where converting to video doesn't make sense.
Text can be scanned, searched with Ctrl+F, and consulted in seconds. For reference content, that speed is irreplaceable.
An employee needs to check the returns policy. Another wants to confirm the steps for requesting time off. Are they going to watch a 5-minute video to find one specific piece of information?
Text is scannable. You search it with Ctrl+F. You find what you need in 15 seconds. Video is linear: you watch it start to finish, or at least guess which minute contains what you're looking for. For any content that serves as reference, like an internal FAQ, a procedures manual, or a tools guide, text wins.
Multiple studies agree: for pure theoretical knowledge, there are no significant differences between video and text. Format matters less than material quality.
If your training involves explaining strategic frameworks, financial models, or high-level corporate policies, video doesn't add much over text.
The BMC Medical Education study we mentioned has a relevant nuance: while video outperformed text for practical skills, no significant differences were found in theoretical knowledge acquisition⁶. MIT researchers reached a similar conclusion: when content is purely informational, format matters less than material quality⁷.
When information expires in hours, a direct message or shared document is more practical than any audiovisual format.
Some information has a shelf life measured in hours: shift changes, real-time pricing adjustments, daily incidents. For that, a Slack message or email works better than any other format.
Important distinction: this does not include regulations, policies, or procedures that change monthly or quarterly. That type of content does benefit from video, precisely because current tools allow you to update a video in minutes without re-recording anything. Text loses here, not the other way around: an outdated PDF with regulatory content is harder to locate and correct than an AI-editable video.
Technical profiles prefer reading at their own speed, skipping what they already know, and going deep on what they don't. Video imposes a single pace that doesn't fit this type of learning.
Developers, engineers, data analysts. Profiles accustomed to reading technical documentation at their own rhythm, skipping sections they've mastered, and diving into the ones they haven't.
Text allows that natural flexibility. A video, no matter how well produced, imposes a single pace for everyone. For technical training aimed at advanced profiles, well-structured text remains more practical.
The right question isn't "text or video?" but "what does this person need to learn, and what's the most effective way for them to learn it?"
It's easy to fall into the trap of "we need more videos" as if the format were the goal. It's not.
The question that should guide the decision isn't "text or video?" but "what does this person need to learn, and what's the most effective way for them to do so?" Sometimes the answer is a 3-minute video. Sometimes it's a one-page document. And sometimes it's a combination of both.
The concept of smart content points precisely to this: choosing the format based on the learning objective, the audience, and the consumption context. Not based on trends or inertia.
Only 23% of L&D programs are truly multimodal⁵. There's enormous room for improvement, and that improvement starts with making conscious decisions about which content benefits from each format.
Use this table with six criteria to evaluate whether a specific training asset would benefit more from video or text format.
If you're assessing which content in your organization is worth transforming, this table can serve as a starting point.
| Criterion | Points to video | Points to text |
|---|---|---|
| Content type | Procedural, visual, cultural | Theoretical, reference, consultative |
| Update frequency | Regular (monthly, quarterly, annual) | Expires in hours (shifts, live pricing) |
| Audience | Diverse, distributed, non-technical | Technical, self-directed, specialized |
| Primary goal | Engagement, culture, retention | Quick lookup, data retrieval |
| Number of people | High (50+) | Low (under 10) |
| Emotional component | High (values, welcome, change) | Low (procedures, policies) |
It's not an exact formula. But if most criteria point in one direction, you're probably making the right call.
Start with the 3-5 assets that would have the highest impact as video. No need to transform your entire library at once.
You don't need to convert your entire content library overnight. And you shouldn't.
The most efficient approach is to identify the 3-5 pieces of content that would have the greatest impact as video and start there. Usually those are: onboarding, the most critical compliance training, and the processes that generate the most questions for your support team.
With tools that convert existing documents into video, like those powered by generative AI, your starting point can be the same PDF or PowerPoint you already have. Forum Sport, for instance, transforms their highest-impact content into visual format using these platforms, keeping text for the most operational materials.
If you want to explore which content in your organization would benefit from video format, you can start by calculating the return on investment or reviewing the success stories of teams that have already made the switch.
It depends on the content type. Video works better for procedural training, onboarding, and compliance, where visual retention makes a difference. Text is more effective for reference documentation and theoretical content. The ideal approach is combining both formats based on the learning objective.
Cost varies by method. Traditional production with cameras and actors can run thousands per video. AI-powered video creation platforms cut those costs by up to 70%, allowing you to create videos from existing documents without recording equipment.
Yes. There are platforms that let you import PDF or PowerPoint documents and transform them into videos with avatars, voiceover, and professional design. The process takes minutes, not weeks.
When information expires within hours (day-to-day operational communications), when it serves as quick-reference material that needs to be scannable, when the audience is technical and needs to control their own pace, or when the content is purely theoretical with no relevant visual component.
Onboarding, health and safety, product training, compliance, operational protocols, and any process that involves visual demonstration or a sequence of steps.
According to a University College London study with 500 participants, there are no significant differences in learning outcomes between human-recorded and AI-generated videos². Both formats achieve comparable success rates for information retention and recognition.
¹ Video Learning Retention Statistics - Viostream
² How Effective Is AI Video in Training? - Learning Technologies 2026
³ Corporate Training Statistics & Trends for 2026 - Training Orchestra
⁴ 2025 Training Industry Report - Training Magazine
⁵ 28 Video Training Statistics: 2025 Data - Research.com
⁶ Video- or text-based e-learning when teaching clinical procedures? - PMC/NIH
⁷ Does Video Actually Improve Learning and Engagement? - Water Bear Learning
@ 2026 Vidext Inc.
Newsletter
Discover all news and updates from Vidext
@ 2026 Vidext Inc.
