Right, that was my intuition as well. Ten minutes is still too long for the use case that they’re targeting, of people on the go who want to fill in time looking at their phone. A ten-minute short still requires a level of concentration (and absence of interruptions) not suited for that scenario. Social media is still a lot better for that, as is tiktok’s far lower video length.
And, yes, I know it sounds kind of bizarre to ridicule a ten-minute short as “too long”. Fortunately, the public is (still, for now) absolutely willing to watch productions that take a bigger time and attention investment. It’s just, they want to watch it at home, possibly with others, on a bigscreen. Quibi deliberately avoided that with the “mobile only” constraint that they’re now reversing.
I feel like their target demographic had to be based on public-transit commuters.
Who else has:
* 10 minute+ but less than 22-30 minute "full TV show" long uninterrupted breaks
* Where their phone is the primary connectivity device
* Predictably available?
If I'm at home, I have the PC, the TV, any number of better ways to enjoy content. If I'm in a car I'm driving, I can't watch video. If I'm on the toilet or a lunch break, I may not have 10 uninterrupted minutes.
I wonder if in 20 years, we'll see it on self-driving cars as a similar fit. "Your estimated trip time is 17 minutes, here are some recommendations of programming for the dashboard screen."
And, yes, I know it sounds kind of bizarre to ridicule a ten-minute short as “too long”. Fortunately, the public is (still, for now) absolutely willing to watch productions that take a bigger time and attention investment. It’s just, they want to watch it at home, possibly with others, on a bigscreen. Quibi deliberately avoided that with the “mobile only” constraint that they’re now reversing.
Edit: sorry for overusing “still”.