I’ve been told that it’s basically impossible to talk about authenticity without being inauthentic. So, I’ll try to stick to the numbers here.
At NextWave Hire, we have deep data on how our videos perform. What percentage get watched all the way through, the average view length as a percentage of the total video, etc. It’s a pretty interesting dataset.
We also have some data on how typical videos from around the internet perform. Here are some numbers.
The stat that’s most interesting is that 50% watch through rate for 2 min videos. This is from Wistia, which mostly hosts well produced video testimonials, product videos, etc. I feel like a jerk saying these videos aren’t “authentic”…but my point is that someone threw in some high quality lighting, background music, and a script. It’s clearly content produced for a reason, and produced by someone who was paid to do it.
Now look at the video in NextWave. It’s what I’d call “authentic” (of course, I’m biased). Authentic here means the lighting is ok, the sound is ok, there is no script, it was done in 1 take, and there is no pro producer behind it.
So, which one performs better? Well, the videos on our site, on average, are watched 85% of the way through (vs that 50% stat above)…and the average length is 1.7 minutes (so just below the 2 minute marker).
You could argue that of course people are going to watch the videos in NextWave since they are key to understanding if a role is right for them (a huge decision in their lives), and help them prep for interviews. But, I’d like to think the “authentic” aesthetic has something to do with it as well ☺. I’ll let you be the judge.
Latest posts by Phil Strazzulla (see all)
- Discriminating Against Candidates Via Zipcodes - May 22, 2019
- HR vs Marketing: How Often Do We Update Our Website - April 2, 2019
- Decreasing Candidate Dropoff by 94% - March 27, 2019