We're huge fans of measuring everything about your web video, but analytics are pointless unless you know how to read them to better understand how well your video is working and, more importantly, how to improve upon it. While we know you're all (almost too) smart and capable of reading your analytics, we thought it might be nice to include periodic examples on our blog, adorably entitled Stats Snacks, of how we and others have personally used analytics to improve our video (or maybe even where we've messed up, even though we totally don't mess up at all, ever).
In this particular morsel, which some of you might recognize from a recent webinar, we started with a customer testimonial from our friends at Litmus, an awesome email campaign testing and tracking application. In the first iteration of the video, we asked for them to provide the context of who they are and tell their story, then talk about how they use Wistia.
The analytics for that particular video are the browner portion of the graph below. You can see a pretty big drop off at the end of the video, when we were wrapping it up, showing our logo and pitching Wistia. Overall the engagement was okay for a 1:30 video, but on the lower side. We decided we wanted to mix it up; because we'd shot testimonials with different companies, we re-edited the video so that instead of being a testimonial from Litmus, it was interviews with four to five different companies, interviewing them about why they would pay for video hosting. The graphs look pretty similar -- there's still a drop off at the end, but it turned out the second video (featured lower in this post) was significantly more engaging than the first.
Instead of going back and re-editing the first testimonial, as we could have done, we wanted to take the opportunity to have the testimonial be more focused and work with other content we'd shot. We didn't shoot any new content, just combined footage we already had.
The point of all of this? Whatever analytics you're using, the numbers aren't necessarily going to give you that final insight. You need to look in context of what you're actually doing to see what caused the boost. In this case, we think the newer version was more engaging because more was packed into a smaller period of time to hold attention, hitting key points over and over (versus the first video that was a slower narrative video about Litmus). Additionally, the new video was placed right on the front page of the Wistia website. In that context, the question "Why Pay For Video Hosting" was probably a question on visitors' minds -- so the video aligned context to content, making the video more engaging.
By closing the circle with analytics and improving our own videos, we can apply our learnings to whatever we do in the future. If you have any stats stories that you think would be a good snack, send Alyce an email!