Thoughts on Flash Galleries?
 

Just wanted to see what people's opinions are regarding Flash video galleries vs "static" video galleries ( right click download)?

I was chatting with a friend the other day who said he sees much higher joins when he uses static galleries vs flash galleries on MGP's and linking to them from blogs. What I found interesting is he uses the same scenes to test this out. For the static galleries there are three .wmv's 45 seconds each. For the flash galleries he cuts the scenes into 3 min .flv trailers. he says the galleries with the 3 wmv's produce significantly higher joins.

Thoughts?

Not everybody has the software to view flash.

Almost everyone has the software to view videos - MPG / AVI / ETC. formats.

It would be interesting to see if any static gallery conversions come from iphones or similar devices that don't support flash.

Honestly, if a surfer doesn't have flash on their computer, odds are they don't have broadband either and won't be able to watch video either.

I wish more flash FHG's were available. Most would rather click/play (less a little buffer sometimes) then dl videos.

99.2% of our traffic has Flash installed, whereas the 6-7% on macs may not be able to view all mpegs/avis/etc.

Trend, does he see a better ratio or is it higher sales for wmvs? Is the traffic to both from the same source? If its the same traffic, did he show the wmvs before the flash content or at the same time?

Also, if he's testing whether people would rather use wmvs, or mpgs, or flash, he should use the same layout format. Something like 3 flash clips of 45 secs with same thumb sizes. Perhaps the perception of more is whats driving the sales and not the file format.

bingo.flash penetration especially due to online games is pretty high these days