The Hypocrisy of "Rules" for Web Video

Interesting read, good points and I agree with the overall statement being made. Though, the reality from the ideal is a big difference and that's why these "rules" are touted as useful and used as some sort of gauge. On TV you know that the vast majority of viewers won't sit through longer commercials, so the goal is to keep it short but still deliver the message. The reason that most viewers won't sit through longer commercials is that they can change the channel, dislike them due to the populous stigmas, TIVO past them, get up and go to the bathroom/get a snack, check their email, whatever, etc ,etc. So, by keeping them short you increase your chances of the viewer sitting through your commercial. That's especially true if you have good content and get their attention quickly.

Now, think of web video as a commercial, which, in many ways, it is. There are equal distractions at the computer, so in essence the shorter you keep it and quicker you get their attention the higher your chances of having them watch in it's entirety. It's a paradigm that sucks, but it's a reality. The fact that web video's "quality has typically been appallingly low" makes the average viewer think/feel that they're inferior like, say, um....commercials! And that's the nature of the web, with democracy comes mediocracy and worse. This does create a mindset which can negate actual quality programming, but it has been cultured by years of viewing their content on TV.

The universal answer is usually "yes" because the universal goal is generally to have people view your content. The most people possible, and the best way to do this is by following these "guidelines" set forth by the viewer. It's not the only way, but since time and money are huge factors of any undertaking, i.e., there's always a cost associated, it's best to use actual metrics that are somewhat proven. Even if they're faulty and flawed. That's the nature of the beast and marketing to that beast.

But...if you don't care about getting the most people (average people) watching it then you can make it any length you want. I guess it's finding that compromise between creativity and commerce. Hopefully the content is good and you can rely on things like word of mouth rather than a short runtime and a catchy get-your-attention gimmick. The flaw there is that the people that actually watch the longer form stuff usually have friends like them that would watch longer form content anyways. At that point you're not breaking through to that average user that views online video with 20th century viewing habits. But, will you ever break into that demographic anyways until wholesale viewing habits change(which will)? There's the catch 22 and back to the balancing act of creativity versus commerce. Cyclical.

Just a thought....
 
Good thoughts... if you have a moment I'd love for you to post them as a comment to the blog!

I'm most curious about your assertion that commercials are inferior. Inferior in what way? In terms of production quality? As storytelling vehicles? How?
 
people who bark rules wreak of limitations.
The worst things learned in any art school are the what not to dos. "you can't do this and that because" stuff. It's art. It'll only be good art if rules are shattered and moked.

When I make a piece, I make the piece or follow as it makes itself. Never would I limit it or myself with things like rules.
 
grinner said:
people who bark rules wreak of limitations.
The worst things learned in any art school are the what not to dos. "you can't do this and that because" stuff. It's art. It'll only be good art if rules are shattered and moked.

When I make a piece, I make the piece or follow as it makes itself. Never would I limit it or myself with things like rules.
Click to expand...

Sadly, it doesn't work that way with clients and other people's money. I wish it did. It's a fine line, and I would like to say that art always wins in the end, but we all know how that goes :)

That's why I work on personal projects, complete freedom and on my dime so I only have to answer to myself. Otherwise there's a piper to be paid.

dougspice, I'm on my iPhone now, so I'll post them there tomorrow when I'm back at a computer. Regarding inferioir, I would say it's safe to assume that most people see them as nucenses (sp?) except for during the Super Bowl. Which is just odd when you think about it.
 
It works this way for me. My clients come to me counting on getting something they can't get anywhere else.
I can't afford to just work on personal projects.
Truth is there are many media processors my clients could go to to get something done. They are paying for my input.
 
@oneinfiniteloop:

That makes sense, I suppose. I don't actually own a TV, so when I am watching commercials, it is specifically because I want to appreciate them. I consider commercials, especially 30 second spots, to be probably the most difficult of filmmaking/storytelling skills.

But, I am certain this entire way of seeing things puts me far in the minority. Most people would probably think I am nuts for choosing to watch commercials in my free time!

@grinner:

I'm glad it's working for you, but I'm sure you're just as much a minority as I am with my viewing habits! Most clients would run for the hills if they heard that you wanted to "follow [the piece] as it makes itself." People tend to like plans and proposals that they can base results upon.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top