Does Length Matter? It Does For Video: 2K12 Edition

May 7 2012

Does Length Matter? Initially, this question might evoke thoughts only appropriate for your spam inbox. Obviously, we aren't going to write a long post here on that meaning of that question -- but we do find ourselves uniquely poised to answer the very same question about business video, with tons of data from business videos of every type at our disposal. The graphs below summarize literally millions of data points from the last couple years (since our last post about this topic in 2009).

The above graph (let's call it Exhibit A, because it's fun to feel like a detective) is the most consolidated display of the data, with one data point for each video length range, on the x-axis, with the average % viewed for videos of that length on the y-axis. Basically, it's representative of the video engagement number within Wistia (so you could compare your number with the number for that length on this graph to see how well you're doing compared to the average!). This graph tells us that shorter videos are better for getting people to watch the whole thing. After all, most business video is created to serve up a pre-packaged message, so the longer the video, the less people will watch. It's also noticeable that after a certain point the engagement average flattens out -- so there's not a major difference in engagement for a 4-minute versus a 10-minute video.

On to Exhibit B, where the x-axis represents the percentage of a video viewed (think of each line as the average engagement graph for a video of that length range in Wistia, one of the bars of Exhibit A over time, with each line representing the average video for that bin, with the lengths normalized), and the y-axis represents audience engagement. In this case, you could compare the engagement graph line of your own video to the appropriate line of this graph to compare yourself to the average.

A possible takeaway from this graph would be to organize the content of your videos journalistically, placing the most important, essential information first, then following with supporting details. For longer videos, notice that the dropoff at the beginning is extremely steep; it seems that most viewers decide quickly whether or not to watch, and once that decision is made, they tend to stick around until the end of the video, when they detect that the video is wrapping up and another drop off occurs. For this reason, if you're using a post-roll call-to-action, you might want to consider a harder stop to your video, rather than a meandering wrap-up -- this will ensure that more viewers stick around to see your CTA.

Exhibit C takes things one step deeper: this is the raw data that went into creating the above graphs. Each frame in this animated graph represents one of the time ranges from the above graph. Each of the faded lines is the engagement graph for an actual video, while the average line for that video length is in orange. Again, the x-axis represents percent viewed and the y-axis represents audience engagement.

The interesting thing to notice here is the wide variation even for videos of the same length. The variation tends to be more wide at the beginning, tightening toward the end (again hinting that people decide whether or not to watch pretty quickly). There are definitely outliers, but all in all, longer videos see a tighter overall distribution, where it's safe to say that if you're doing 30% versus 25% engagement on average, for example, you're doing pretty well.

The main takeaways from our first "Does Length Matter?" post still hold true: overall, shorter videos are more engaging than longer videos. You should strive to make your content as concise as possible to achieve the highest engagement. If your message is more complex, feel free to give it the time it deserves, but understand that a major chunk your audience won’t make it to the end of the video and consider front-loading your video with the most important information at the beginning.

If you're thirsty for more, we're hosting a webinar on video length on Thursday, May 17!

Ben (15 Posts)

Doer of things and drinker of beers


Tags: , , , , ,

  • http://twitter.com/MaxSchnur Max Schnur

    First!

  • http://KyleClouse.com/ Kyle Clouse

    This is the first time I have come across Wistia.  Great data on the length of the video being shorter.  You would think that would be standard procedure but I see to many videos where they try to fit as much in as they can in one video verses making several mini-videos that are specific. BTW, I did watch your video to the end.

  • http://www.videobroadcastservices.com/ Video Broadcast Services

    This is awesome data!  We tell our clients that multiple mini info-mercials is what they need to do. With the smaller videos focusing on specific aspects of a business we are also able to better optimize the video and be very specific with the search engines what the content of the video is about.  Great article!

  • http://primetorontoneighbourhoods.com/ Jccarr

    Generally speaking I guess those numbers make sense. My question is …why do so many of those RSA Animate type videos have such high views in spite of being ‘long’ ?
    For those not familiar with term, RSA Animate type videos are done on a whiteboard where the illustrator draws pictures and cartoons along with the dialogue.

  • http://www.produxs.com/ Brent Copstead

    I think this is a difficult topic to analyze, since there are so many different types of videos. It would be great to see Wistia break down this info.

  • http://www.facebook.com/the.leif Leif Espelund

    Did anybody else notice that the gentleman in this video NEVER blinks. It’s creepy. Blink man!

  • http://twitter.com/ruedlinger Ben Ruedlinger

    It’s not me…it’s the editing!

  • http://twitter.com/jeffvincent jeffvincent

    Hey John – 

    I think this is a great question.  ’Views’ don’t always correlate well with ‘engagement’. The Kony video of this year is a good example – 89 million views on my last count, but I would highly doubt a high % of those views were the full video.

    Having watched several of the RSA Animate videos, I found them to be very engaging – fun to not only watch excellent sketching live, but also the points articulated in the series tend to be very high-quality ( ie Thomas Pinker, “Language as a Window into Human Nature”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU&feature=player_embedded ).

    cheers,
    jv

  • Shayne

    Thanks guys. This is useful. I would expect to see different results with different kinds of videos (e.g. instructional).

    Can I give you a tip…make sure you blink when you’re on camera. It’s a common problem. Even newsreaders, when they start out, will need script inserts to remind them to blink. Thing is, if you don’t blink, you register subjectively as either a bit intense or a bit crazy. ;-)  

  • Alyce

    Went there.

  • http://twitter.com/jeffvincent jeffvincent

    Well, Ben is a bit crazy … does that count?

  • http://imimpact.com/ Shane

    This is very interesting data indeed. And very nicely visualized as well.

    Of course, a longer video can also be a qualifying process and higher engagement does not always equal higher conversions.
    As the old advertising adage goes: a sales letter/video can never be too long, only too boring.

    In general, the higher the barrier-to-entry for your conversion goal, the better a long video will perform. Free trial? -> short video. Expensive product? -> long video. That would be my starting point, anyway.

  • http://twitter.com/tisDaveSmith Dave Smith

    Great post… data is always useful and interpretation not always straightforward though, as mentioned by others.  Some very succesful marketers regularly run 30-60min videos in a product launch sequence, so it’s down to the value and interest engendered by the start of the video.  I guess, like everything, if people are interested and intrigued enough they’ll keep watching!

  • Chris Lavigne

    As editor of this video…I take full responsibility in the accusation of no blinks. :)

  • http://brendanschwartz.com/ Brendan Schwartz

    Where’s your avatar, Lavigne?

  • http://www.facebook.com/Jamesschramko James Schramko

    awesome!

  • http://KyleClouse.com/ Kyle Clouse

    Great service.

  • Ian McConnell

    I’ve always been more engaged with short punchy videos… 

  • http://www.inmyhomeoffice.com/ Ian McConnell

    Has anyone tested a sales page with multiple short videos intermingled with text instead of the long sales video? In Western Australia I have the fastest possible broadband connection and those long videos are an absolute pain to watch… even with pressing start and then pause for 5 mins.

  • Kevin Rogers

    Excellent study. Thank you. Can you provide any more insight to the style of videos tested? Say percentage that had talking heads compared to slides only, combos, etc? 

  • Dan

    Of course a shorter video is going to have a higher rate of completion. But if you use videos to sell, shorter is not always better. 

  • Shayne

    Ian, that would be an interesting test. Perhaps MecLabs have done that sort of A/B testing using multiple videos.

    Mate, I’m an Aussie in the US. But, I just spent 3 yrs at home (Dawesville, WA). I was with Internode and never had any problem with bandwidth. Cost, on the other hand, seems like a real problem…and, ultimately a limiting factor in the growth of online video delivery in Oz…especially mobile video. Mobile data rates are a total scam.

  • Shayne

    Crazy always counts…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=537435581 Tourism Tim Warren

    Awesome research. 

    Was any of this data collected within a paid membership site where the viewer may be more motivated to watch longer?

    I coach B2B tourism professionals to get their clients selling for them with 1 minute video testimonials.

    I love doing interviews and short screen capture tutorials that usually run 15 – 25 minutes. If I could only learn to be as brief too :-)

  • http://savagethoughts.com Chris Savage

    This is something we’re working doing with future posts. It’s a little more involved because we have to determine video types… but we’ll get it figured out. :)

  • http://brendanschwartz.com/ Brendan Schwartz

    This is a really good point. We’ve certainly seen some very successful longer videos. Even if most people aren’t making it to the end of a long video, the people who do are going to be extremely engaged.

    I like your: “a video can never be too long, only too boring”. It’s very hard to keep people’s attention, but if you can do it successfully, why wouldn’t you make your videos longer?

    The most important thing is to measure your video’s engagement and commit to making improvements.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sblentlinger Steve Blentlinger

    Short and sweet is always better. Great Data, Great Post, Very Useful.

  • http://www.amantalwar.com/ Aman

    Good research, nice info Josh…

  • Pingback: The Best Length for an Explainer Video - Demo Duck

  • http://www.facebook.com/bbonomo Bernard Dino Bonomo

    Kyle – I’ve been using Wistia for all our video content.. it’s awesome!

  • Pingback: Does Length Matter When It Comes to Explainer Videos?

  • Pingback: 10 great tips to Optimize Videos for Search | Position² Blog

  • Stephen Fasano

    Am I the only one who interprets this data to mean that a 1 minute video is better than a 30 second video? 75% of 60 sec is 45 seconds of viewer engagement vs. 80% of 30 sec is 24 seconds of viewer engagement.

  • Fabrice

    No, you are not the only one. There are a couple of statements that are obviously unexamined: “the dropoff at the beginning is extremely steep” and “most viewers decide quickly whether or not to watch.” The inflection point for the 4 min and under curves is too flat to detect on the graph, but starting with the 5 – 10 min graph, the inflection point is at about 5%, or 15 – 30 seconds of watching. Decide quickly? How so? It takes the viewers of those videos the entire time it would take them to watch a <30 second video to decide whether they want to continue watching their 10-min one! And that does not consider that the "steep" dropoff only goes to 85% engagement. This is even more salient with 60+ min videos. Viewers watch for a whole 3 minutes before dropping off to (still) a 50% engagement.

    So I would not assert that viewers "decide quickly" without first assessing what the graph measures. The X axis is misleading. X% of 30 seconds is a very different length than X% of 60 minutes. It looks to me like viewers take between 30 seconds and 3 minutes to decide whether or not they want to watch.

    Not as clear cut as one would like to make it seems.

  • Alyce

    I think it depends on what you’re trying to get out of a video. Of course comparing a 60-minute video to a 30-second video isn’t /quite/ going to be perfect, and even comparing videos within categories can’t be perfect because there are plenty of qualitative things at play, because they’re going to have very different types of content.

    But between, say, 45 minutes and 60 minutes, you might be able to get an idea of whether you should try to cut a video down a bit in hopes that a viewer will end up getting a more full idea of your message in terms of the average. It’s more about being able to compare your personal engagement rates to the average than trying to compare unrelated segments.

    In terms of engagement levels, sure, 75% of 60 seconds is 45 seconds of viewer engagement vs. 80% of 30 seconds is 24 seconds of viewer engagement, but it’s also a lesser fraction of the message that you’re trying to get across.

  • Jason Falk

    Agree – totally creepy – maybe their research shows eye contact is good for engagement – but they should know that too much is a sign of psychopathy.

  • Daniel Cheney

    Loved the blinks, Ben! You even looked human! The smile helps too..

  • http://www.notwillsmith.com/ William Smith

    Anything over 2 mins and my vids become a ghost town. *tumbleweeds*