3 Minutes To Tell Your Story Online
Illustrating the point we made yesterday about the impact of increased broadband (i.e., high speed) internet access, comScore has released the latest monthly figures (April ’09) re online video viewing. Key points:
- An impressive 79% of the total U.S. Internet audience viewed online video;
- That translates to nearly 152 million U.S. Internet users watching an average of 111 videos per viewer;
- The average online video viewer watched 385 minutes of video, or 6.4 hours in the month;
- 107.1 million viewers watched 6.8 billion videos on YouTube.com (63.5 videos per viewer; other video sites in top 3 include MySpace and Hulu); and,
- The duration of the average online video was 3.5 minutes.
With four-of-five netizens watching online video, that means your donors almost assuredly are. Are they watching any from you?
comScore notes that the average length of videos watched is increasing. Consumers are getting comfortable with the channel. That means you have 2-3 minutes to tell your story in a compelling fashion in the second highest impact medium yet invented (next to face-to-face recommendation by a trusted friend).
Are you up to the challenge?
Tom
6 responses to “3 Minutes To Tell Your Story Online”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
I would argue that it’s closer to 2 minutes than 3.
More and more people are surfing while watching TV. So your online message had better be good enough to distract someone from their favourite show
– OR –
It had better be short enough to play in its entirety during the commercial break… while also allowing for someone time to make their way to the refrigerator for a drink.
Tom,
I commented on your important June 24 post regarding home broadband penetration, because I thought it underscored the need for nonprofits to incorporate online messaging into their overall corporate/constituency communications plan in order to reach the ever-growing, computer-using audience.
Your post of today is a natural follow-up, because it emphasizes: (1) just how powerful online video messaging can be, and (2) just how brief a potential viewer-attention span one has when using online video.
Laurie Pringle makes a key point about that span in estimating that it is, perhaps, as little as two minutes in length. You might be correct that it could be as long as three. In any case, I completely agree that it is VERY short. In addition, the typical American has a very short memory for what has been seen online or on TV. One has a very tough job in trying to capture attention and convey a nonprofit, mission-related and case-oriented message in two-three minutes. After all, this is not cereal, vacation or auto advertising!
In my view, most all online communication — in order to make any real and lasting difference in nonprofit constituency development or relationship management — needs to be followed up by some “harder” or more durable messaging, perhaps using regularly scheduled e-mail communication, traditional collateral material and letters, even old-fashioned personal contact. Or, maybe a combination of these or other communication channels!
Just my thoughts!
When it comes to video, a viewer will never last the 3 minutes if the message doesn’t entice or absorb them quickly. You really have 30 seconds to pull them in, or they’re gone.
The average video viewed is 3.5 minutes, but it’d be interesting to know the number of times someone clicks away from a video before it finishes–that’s a more telling figure.
As with any video you make, it’s important to remember the value of sound. People will be more likely to watch bad video with good sound, than great footage with bad sound.
Inspire donors in the beginning and you’ve got ’em!
Video has some great potential. As for the length I agree the shorter, the better and sound is critical.
Another thing to consider is the power of serialization. Coming from a TV background and now working in the non-proft world I think short serialzed video has potential – it creates the opporutnity to incorporate viewer feedback and interactiion.
Ray is on the mark.
We’re using Twitter and we’ve had enormous success by communicating “with” them. We don’t just blast out messages, we engage, chat, converse.
We follow up with direct messages, then to email, and if they show an interest, a phone call follows. We find out what’s important to them, what they’re doing and what they want to do – and then we work with them to allow them to help us.
That could be an event, it could be posting a personal story online, it could be inviting them to join in a volunteer capacity. It’s an entry point for passionate champions to become involved.
Whether it’s a youtube video, an enewsletter, a tweet or a post on your facebook group/page. It’s all about connecting and giving people the opportunity to get involved in any number of ways.
But to get there – you’ve got to get their attention, amidst the multitude of mass media and you’ve got to have someone paying enough attention to find those great souls who are eager to do more.
[…] This statistic comes from a comScore report, but was brought to my attention by The Agitator. […]