If you have just one creator and a few consumers (like family) then video makes sense. I'm talking about more general publication where there are lots of readers or viewers, so a large effort by the creator is worth it even for a small benefit for each reader.

People should not do video because they think it will be less work for them than taking the time to write well. And even if they will put in more work, they should remember the added cost to the viewer in time. They must make it worth it. They should not do it because they hope they will be a famous video personality -- only a small minority have that talent.

As always, ask, "Is what I'm doing with video adding so much it's worth asking the viewer to spend ten times as much time on the result?" Ditto for audio, though in that case the ability to listen while jogging/driving/etc. may provide the appropriate incentive.

Some video productions are good quality, and entertaining, and have sassy blondes in tight shirts clicking next on a fake keyboard. That's OK but there can only be a few of those. The right answer is going to normally be somewhere in between. I think the future will offer us slick multimedia combinations where we start reading, and click to see interesting snippets of video where they make sense, and easily skip to the next item or a particular word when we get bored.