Content length Quotes

Views online is a real weird and sticky subject. One view on a 30-second piece of content is not equivalent to one view on a 30 minute video. In my mind it's not quite the same thing.

There is a generation of skimmers. It's not that they don't want to read in-depth content, but they want to evaluate what the content is before they commit time. Especially on a mobile phone - you don't have the phone, or cellular data, or screen size to be reading full-length content.

I think when YouTube first came out, everyone was thinking people were just going to watch five-minute shows from now on and that people didn't have the patience anymore to watch longer programmes. But instead, everyone is binge watching and consuming ten-hour programmes and box sets of shows, so it is really interesting.

'True Blood' is shot on film. It's more like a movie, and they take more days to shoot it, plus it has an hour of content. 'The Good Wife' is network. They're shooting on HD. It moves quicker and they only have forty minutes of content instead of a full hour. Not to mention the difference of shooting, you know, rated-R stuff!

The type of person that might thrive on Vine in a six-second clip might not be the same kind of entertainer who would shine on a 10-minute vlog on YouTube. If anything, having these different platforms gives more people a chance to creatively express themselves.

The scope of what I have to say determines the length of what I write.

Emphasizing and rewarding length over quality results in worse writing and more reader abandonment.

Unless you're doing a feature piece, which is going to be longer, and you have more time to get into stuff.

Let's be honest with one another: almost everything is too long except life, and I know people who wouldn't even concur with that exception.

The tendency when you dictate is to overwrite, because you're not counting pages, you don't really know what the hell the page count is.

YouTube, as longer form, the content you make there has to keep you entertained for three minutes - or five minutes.

And to be fair, most documentaries are half an hour too long, anyway. Let's not kid ourselves. Most movies are an hour too long. I will say that the internet has changed everything in terms of distribution and because of iTunes and other outlets like that, length is no longer something you really think about, in my opinion. It's irrelevant.

People's attentions spans are getting shorter and shorter. I don't want to cater to that necessarily but, just for myself, it feels like more than 40 minutes of music is too much.

If you have only 95 minutes of material, make an only 95-minute movie. Amazing how often that's forgotten.

Twitter is so short, it's safe. I don't want my bosses to be like, 'Hey, your script is due and we saw you wrote four blog pages.'

Nearly all interested parties think I write too shortly on the subjects that interest them most.

Now, with YouTube, the audience decides. You can make something that is 20 minutes long or one minute long.

It is easier to achieve a desired result in short pieces.

Sometimes you can do a TV show on a subject you just can't do in film. Either it's too long or studios will perceive it as not being commercial.

If something is making us bored, we should probably keep it shorter.

I think one of the most exciting things about the whole digital side of publishing is that it eventually allows you to operate at any length. That also means shorter stuff, too.

Last thing you want to do with a good movie is hold the audience hostage. As an entertainer myself, I just know it's better when you leave 'em wanting more than to stick around too long.

I think people seem to want to read pieces that are shorter but not as short as the pieces they can read in small bites on the Internet. It may be that the sort of long essays are hitting a sweet spot between the tiny morsels online and the full-length book.