This is Signal vs. Noise, a weblog by 37signals about design, business, experience, simplicity, the web, culture, and more. Established 1999 in Chicago. Follow us on Twitter for more information on our products.

Great advice. Thanks.

I’d be interested to know how you came to that web video / feature film calculation. Wouldn’t the content really drive how long the attention span is? Y’all have had some blog posts back in the day that drove over 200 responses, with people still engaged in the conversation. I’d think someone, somewhere would come to the conclusion that the conversation gets lost after ~20 comments.

Otherwise, you’re setting a forecast for success, and we know how that goes.

Why should online video be so much shorter than online audio?

Uhm, sorry?

I’m sure you have a reason for saying this ridiculous thing, like a very particular type of web video that should be 1/60th of a feature film. I know, trailers!

Seriously, if Fritz Lang were alive know, would he make a modern version of M in 1 minute and 10 seconds?

Dammit, I got my math wrong.

Given the exploding popularity of online media, I’d say this is a real opportunity for video analytics, where producers can get real feedback on drop-off points, and then adjust their length accordingly.

I thino I recall seeing that Sal Khan uses a similar type analytics program (incorporated in YouTube?) that shows him the entrances and exits of his videos.

I think it really depends on the content. If it is a product demo, which I imagine most of yours are, then of course it should be short. If its educational, then it should be longer. If you make it entertaining, you can extend its length, but most web video is dry and to the point. Which is why videos like Mailchimp produces stand out

As stated above it sure is the content that drives the length, in general the formula is probably ok as a very very coarse rule of thumb.

But for really great content like Chase Jarvis: LIVE which can span up to about 90 minutes it’s not. But those conversations are also available as podcasts so they’re more in a grey area between audio and video.

It depends on content, and, more personally, where I am when I want to watch it. At home, I’m happy to watch 45 minutes of a TED talk or a full streaming movie on Netflix. At work, I can’t be bothered to watch anything longer than a few minutes.

And if it’s a tutorial, where I’m expected to watch the video, and then perform the action it depicts, the shorter the better.

Which sounds like:

“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

...but with the words ‘formula’ and ‘web’ shoved in for good measure.

BS! Your video should last as long as you have something interesting to show or say, it does not matter if it is an “online” video.

We’ll look back someday 5 years from now and say – “remember when we used to think of ‘web video’ as vastly different than ‘non web video’”? Where web video should be no longer than 2 or 3 minutes and if any longer it should move to non-web video – I guess theaters, cable tv, and dvds?

Oh, wait, that day’s already here for many people.

[For troll hat purposes, I wear a size 7&7/8.]

“The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder.” —Alfred Hitchcock

The difference is the context in which the video is watched. I have a lot more patience for video viewed from a comfy chair in my living room with the lights dimmed, than from in my desk chair when I am supposed to be at work. (The exception here is music videos, they don’t need to be watched to enjoy the music)

The trailer for Jean-Luc Godard’s latest film “Film Socialisme” is the entire film delivered in just over four minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK4yLgj3_Ak

The difference is the context in which the video is watched.

But thanks to interactive tv and mobile devices, that constraint really doesn’t apply anymore either.

FYI , most Indian movies are 2.5 hours long. Most theatres do include a 5 minute break in the middle to allow you to go to the bathroom, buy snacks etc.

Hmmm… I don’t know if I agree. I mean, haven’t we all seen 3-minute videos on the web that were so bad that they seemed to take FOREVER to unspool, and also seen 3 minute videos that were so good that we wanted them to keep going? I think it’s not as simple as ‘1 minute equals 1 hour,’ but is more dependent on whether the content is compelling enough to support more lengthy viewing.

Here’s the thing: almost all internet videos are made with one camera, with one long take. That tests the viewer’s patience.

Remember: no scene in TV last longer than three seconds. That’s why you can sit through a movie without being bored to tears … even when the actor is Jennifer Anniston.

I recently made a This Old House-type video for my grandson while I was installing a floor in my home office. It turned out really cool. But we limited each scene to no longer than 30 seconds, with most of them running about 15 seconds.

YOU GOTTA MOVE , folks.

@Mark: “Given the exploding popularity of online media, I’d say this is a real opportunity for video analytics, where producers can get real feedback on drop-off points, and then adjust their length accordingly.”

Many internet marketers track the drop-off points of their sales videos. The length I’ve heard most often is 90 seconds. I wouldn’t be surprised if similar research informed Flickr’s decision to impose a 90-second cap on user generated videos.

I totally disagree with this. It depends on content, intended audience, platform etc. There are way too many factors for a simple rule of thumb such as this. With that said, I do agree that some videos are better if under a 90 seconds but a general rule of thumb like this is not valid.

@Don One camera is irrelevant, in the hands of an innovative cinematographer, one camera can be a hook, not a hindrance. Certainly one long take is less than favorable for capturing one’s attention, but people do actually still attend the theater/Broadway (remember that?) and sit through fairly long takes between intermissions to get their mobile fix.

Which takes us back to relevancy and interesting content. If the story is compelling enough, one can take greater liberties in the presentation.

That being said, most online videos do not have a compelling reason or an interesting enough story to justify anything more than 5 minutes, tops.

Couldn’t agree more. Most web videos are about 3x longer than they should be.

I think whoever said it above said it right – it depends on the nature of the web video. I doubt Khan Academy would be successful if they stuck to 3 minute videos, but 10 minutes appears to be about right (even though that was an artificial constraint, originally).