Business case
We use a recent study to illustrate this: a YouTube channel of a premium Dutch brand. The channel predominantly distributes ‘how- to’ videos and instructional videos, of which two video formats are examined. The aim of this study was to assess the likeability of a ‘how-to’ video (duration 4:20 min.) and an instructional video (duration 3:30 min.). In addition, we aimed to assess the willingness of viewers to like the videos, comment
on the videos (engagement) and subscribe to the channel (action). The sample consisted of high educated youngsters group aged 18-30, who used the ReelRater™ tool to rate the videos moment-to-moment (quantitative response) with their smartphone, tablet or laptop. Each individual viewer was asked to explain his/her highest and lowest scores (qualitative response) by means of open questions. Finally the viewers filled out a questionnaire.
Likeability of the videos
The graphs below show the moment-to-moment (MTM) likeability responses to the examined videos. The videos are rated by two different groups. The horizontal axis represents the elapsed time and the vertical axis represents the average likeability measured on a 10-100 scale.
The MTM scores of the instructional video (left) shows a rather zigzagged pattern. The scores decline in the first 40 seconds, indicating a high probability of viewers leaving the video and stop viewing. The decline is followed by a gradually rise in scores unto the second minute, where after the scores drop again. The main reasons why certain parts of the video score relatively low, is the mismatch between information supply and demand. Most of the information is already known and is rather obvious. Moreover, the cutting rhythm of the video is perceived as too slow.
The MTM scores of the ‘how-to’ video also fluctuate. The first 32 seconds of the video show a decline in scores, followed by a? rise. Scores between 0:56 minute and 1:20 minute again fluctuate, but rise from the 1:24 minute. The viewers were also asked to explain the low rated parts of the video. Viewers again ascertain a mismatch between viewers’ knowledge and informational content of the video. As with the instructional video the viewers’ point out that the cutting rhythm is too slow. Furthermore the voice-over doesn’t appeal the viewers.
Engagement and action
A frequent used method of determining the engagement of your audience with videos is to look at how many times the video is liked or commented. Behavior is frequently measured by the number of people subscribing to a branded channel (see image below).
For this reason we asked the viewers about their engagement and intention to subscribe to the channel.
It is striking that the intention to become a subscriber to the YouTube channel does not differ between viewers who see the instructional video and viewer who see the ‘how-to’ video. But viewers who see the ‘how-to’ video are more likely to comment upon the video than viewers who see the instructional video. There is only a small difference between the two groups of viewers when it comes to liking the video.
Conclusions
How can one optimise the videos (‘how-to’ video and the instructional video) based on the findings of this research?
First, the relevance of the content across the videos could be improved by providing more in-depth information. The intros of the videos can be mounted more exciting and faster. The viewer must indeed be tempted to watch out the entire video.
Second, the order in which the information is presented on the basis of the viewer’s evaluation of the various sequences can be improved. And also the cutting rhythm with which the information is presented, could be increased too. Finally adjustments can be made on the recording of the voice-over to make it more smooth, clear and enjoyable. The improvements of the videos will optimise the YouTube channel and will probably increase the video interaction.
Charles Vaneker
Klapper Communications
Senior Media & Research Consultant
Twitter: CharlesVaneker
