by Anne Larroque , published on 29.09.2009

I’m asking myself a very simple question regarding the video formats being watched on the Web and can’t seem to find a consensual answer. If any of you have answers or reliable data, I thank you in advance for sharing them with me… I’ve heard some people at the barcamp say that the only efficient video formats on the Web are very short, 2 to 3 minutes, 8 to 10 max. It’s also an idea that I shared until now without asking myself too many questions. But I’m a little bit less sure of it today.

My technical knowledge being quite limited to questions like “oh really?”, “how does it work?” and “can you explain this to me?”, here are some random thoughts:

1-      I’m wondering if these short durations aren’t the results of the beginnings of video on the Web: the files were very heavy and took a long time to load (even in streaming mode), while the definition and the size remained limited. The result was indeed that people had to limit themselves to short durations if they didn’t want to bore or loose the Internet viewer.

2-      Then, as I was browsing through the web, I saw much longer formats appear and by looking at the view count (on YouTube for example), I no longer saw a correlation between a short duration and a higher audience (yes, I know, view counts don’t necessarily mean the viewer watched the whole sequence, but still!…). An example among others: the apocalyptic-prophetic videos for 2012 that are part of the worldwide campaign for the transmedia launch of Emmerich’s film by Columbia (ARG or not? I don’t know yet). Some last 60 minutes (split into 5, 12 minute chapters each for technical reasons, I imagine); the French version (Canadian in fact) boasted more than 400.000 views this past weekend for chapter 1 and about 250.000 views for chapter 5, a sharp decrease, I thought, 150.000 people, almost 4 out of 10 people lost along the way even though that’s not the majority. But another count shows more than 340.000 views for chapters 4 and 5 together, which would mean a decrease of only 60.000 or barely 15%, which is nothing. And English language sites for 2012 show view counts of more than 9 million internet users, there is room to dream!… (for programs of more than 60 minutes without the appearance of John Cusack or Woody Harrelson or Danny Glover, just badly lit wannabe researchers).

3-      The quality of computer screens now rivals with HD screens in terms of size and definition. The time where we had to stick our nose against the screen to look at a video in a cloud of one inch pixels, is over. Most websites offer HD versions and a full screen view, the only limit is the Internet user’s graphic card.

4-      Furthermore, if Internet users have a reputation of being surfers/flickers (in English we call them “netsurfers”) with an elusive attention span, both volatile and unfaithful, it doesn’t stop them from spending endless hours in front of the same screen when they’re playing on the computer (on the internet or not); through the magic of the content, the fickle become addicted.

Hence my questions:

-          Aren’t the uses undergoing serious changes thanks to technical developments? And if that’s the case, in which sense?

-          Is the prerequisite short format not on the verge of exploding with the generalization of HD? (I can’t imagine that Columbia would invest in a 60 minute film rather than 20 times 3 minutes without a major reason…). Does someone know of recent numbers?

-          Finally, aren’t said formats tightly linked to the quality of the content, subjects and services rather than engraved in the stone of statistics?
Thanks in advance to those who can enlighten me!…