The Real Challenge of Web Video

Getting Someone to Click a Link is the Easy Part

I have here on my desk the remains of a V-Lite VHS videocassette. It was sent to my wife a few years ago, a promotional piece encouraging people to raise money for and run in a charity marathon. It was a cause my wife and I both support. I was intrigued by the V-Lite technology and figured I’d take the thing apart after we watched the tape. But we never watched the tape.

I did, however, finally take the thing apart. The design of the V-Lite cassette (www.vlite.com) is quite ingenious. A block of expanded polystyrene (i.e., Styrofoam) holds the two tape spools and sets the tape path. Thin sheets of plastic function as capstans. The foam is wrapped in thin plastic that I mistook for paper until I opened up the cassette. Paperboard glued over the top of the cassette presents text and four-color graphics. Shrink wrap and a mailing label finish the package.

Here’s the real advantage: a V-Lite holding five minutes of video weighs just 1.8 ounces. You can bulk mail them for about the cost of a first-class stamp. That’s cool.

There’s still one problem, though. We never watched the tape. Perhaps we didn’t get as excited about the tape because I spend so many working hours with video. But I think there’s a more important and more universal factor— and it’s not image quality. Today DVDs and home theaters deliver a much more engaging viewing experience than VHS tapes did just a few years go, but I’ve received promotional DVDs that suffered the same fate as that V-Lite cassette. Well, I don’t eviscerate the DVDs. But I don’t always watch them.

Overcoming Inertia

I wouldn’t go to a movie theater to watch just one 30-minute film; that’s too much effort for such a short payoff. However, I’m happy to walk to the couch and watch a 30-minute movie or sitcom (so long as it’s named The Simpsons, Arrested Development or My Name Is Earl). But I rarely turn on the TV for something shorter than ten minutes. Neither my wife nor I felt compelled to make the extra effort to take that promotional tape into the living room, stick it in the VCR and sit down and watch it. Even those simple steps were too much of a hassle for us.

However, I’m more than willing to watch short videos on the Internet. Like 88 million U.S. adults (according to a May 2005 Harris poll), I have access to a broadband connection, both at work and at home. And like many U.S. adults, I’m easily attracted to and distracted by shiny moving pictures.

Beyond viewing stuff for work, I watch movie trailers, silly videos and animations, short films, news clips and more online. Since I’m already at my computer and a browser’s almost always open, clicking a link in an e-mail, RSS feed or Web page takes minimal effort.

However, online’s minimal barrier to entry has a downside. When I go to a movie theater, I’ll sit through the ads, the trailers, opening credits, the slow beginning of certain films and the narrative lull that happens two-thirds of the way through most. I rarely walk out because I’ve made a financial and time investment in the experience. In the living room I have less tolerance for ads and poor execution, but I’ll usually come back to the couch after some commercials or endure some poor filmmaking; I somehow made it halfway through Austin Powers in Goldmember. But I’ll give up on a show more easily at home than in the theater.

On the Internet, the speed with which I’ll click on almost anything is exceeded only by the speed with which I’ll stop watching something that doesn’t hold my attention. The minimal effort required to watch means I have a minimal commitment to seeing the thing through.

Preserving Inertia

As a media consumer, I’m okay with that. But as producers, we need to ensure that whatever we create— marketing, news, entertainment, art— gets viewed all the way through. Like probably every other reader of Studio/monthly, I’m involved with a project that delivers lots of short videos online (I’ll let you know the URL once we resolve some rights issues). Overcoming our workflow and delivery challenges isn’t nearly as tough as maintaining viewers’ attention. We’re tackling this problem not through brilliance, but merely by avoiding what makes us stop watching other people’s online videos. Here are a few basic steps that can help out. They’re simple, but surprisingly not widely observed:

Start the video now. Just as lab animals get a pellet of food each time they complete a task, online viewers need an immediate reward when they click to start an online video. Don’t delay the start of the video by forcing users to set playback options; automatically determine the media players they have installed and start playing at a moderate bit rate. Place player, size and rate options around the playback window. Viewers willing to wait for a higher-quality version to buffer will be less put off by a second click than those who just want to see the video.

Get to the point. Make every pixel count. Title, logos and other text info lives next to the video, not in it. For PDA and iPod viewing, cram as much as you can into one screen and then get to the story.

Frame for very-small-screen delivery. Sure, full-screen IP delivery is the next big thing, but for now focus on the next small thing. Save the Lawrence of Arabia vistas and slow dramatic builds for bigger screens or at least for a mondo-sized download. If you can’t get the viewer to sit through a three-minute clip, how are you going to get them to download a 500 MB file?

Study movie trailers and broadcast commercials. Both maximize viewers’ time and attention. Go to www.apple.com/trailers, www.hollywood.com, www.movies.go.com/screening room, and www.video.google.com to decide which edits and interfaces work best for you. Or just watch www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail143.html.

This may all seem like obvious stuff, but many established media companies don’t seem to know it and don’t get the difference between television and online viewing. Those of us in the trenches can grab and hold viewers while they fiddle around (yes, that’s a Nero metaphor).

TELEVISION VS. COMPUTERS (in hours viewed)

A U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov) study released in September 2005 found that television consumes seven to nine times the leisure time of all recreational computer use. Taken with a May 2005 Harris Poll that says a typical computer user spends nine hours per week online at home and at work, we can understand why traditional media doesn’t put much effort into online innovation yet. Bad for them. Good for us.

Why Bother?

Considering the comparatively small amount of time most people currently spend with online video (see the chart, above left), corporate inertia may be understandable. Big companies don’t change direction until acted upon by a large external force. Smaller companies and individuals notice the building forces much earlier. However, if the established companies don’t shape up soon, the force will overwhelm and derail some of them.

It’s not like Napster, MP3 and iTunes haven’t given them warning. But some companies are misidentifying the force that’s acting on them. If traditional media companies focus more on digital-rights management than on platform-appropriate content, we can create content viewers want to watch and they’ll keep producing the 21st century equivalent of unwatched VHS cassettes.

Write Jim at jfeeley@accessintel.com