Video Marketing Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 Video Marketing Budget Statistics for 2026

Your video budget needs to cover more than a finished file. Production, distribution, adaptation and measurement place different demands on the same team, and studies rarely define those costs identically.

This collection separates video-production findings, broader B2B creative research and Australian agency investment plans. Each population keeps its own meaning. The figures help frame an evidence-led budget discussion without pretending that a survey average is the right price for your next project.

Headline figures

  • 2025 production spending, unknown: 31%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • 2026 video plans, production budget unchanged: 46%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • 2026 video plans, promotion budget increasing: 48%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Creative budget change, up significantly: 26%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Marketing budget allocated to creative, 21–35%: 43%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Video-type selection influence, company goals: 61%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Video-type selection influence, perceived ROI: 20%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Creative production model, hybrid: 47%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Video-production constraint, company size/resources: 66%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Creative budget reallocation, paid-social iterations: 38%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Creative budget reallocation, customer-proof assets: 31%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Australian agencies planning more investment, ad-supported subscription streaming: 71%. (IAB Australia, May 2026)

How much did teams spend and what were they planning?

A budget comparison needs a clearly defined cost base. Production, promotion and the broader creative budget cannot substitute for each other.

What did companies spend on video production?

  • Under $1,000: 20%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • $1,000–$5,000: 18%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • $5,000–$20,000: 16%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Over $20,000: 15%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)

Wistia reports spending bands for video production in the previous year. The unknown-budget share is showed in the takeaways; the remaining bands follow below. These are respondents' annual production budgets, not vendor quotes for a single video or the total cost of reaching an audience. A budget may cover very different volumes, lengths and production methods. Preserve the dollar bands as printed instead of using them to infer an average project price. The source does not establish that every unknown response means a company failed to track spending; some teams may include video inside a broader account. Understanding the accounting boundary comes before comparing one company with another.

How did production and promotion plans differ?

  • Promotion budget decreasing: less than 10%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Under $20,000: 41%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Over $20,000: 28%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)

Wistia separates making videos from paying to distribute them. Its production-budget stability and promotion-increase results appear in the takeaways, while the other reported promotion findings are below. The spending figures concern the prior year, whereas the planned changes concern the report year. Intentions are not realized expenditure, and a company increasing promotion may still have a small absolute budget. Keep the source's less-than qualifier for planned reductions instead of replacing it with an invented exact percentage. The report's ambiguous production-increase summary is excluded here. These observations support separate production and distribution line items, with their own owners and outcome measures, instead of one undifferentiated video total.

How much did B2B technology teams allocate to creative?

  • Up slightly: 50%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Flat: 15%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Down slightly: 8%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Down significantly: 1%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Under 10%: 5%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • 10–20%: 36%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • 36–50%: 12%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Over 50%: 5%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)

Vidico's survey covers creative production across B2B technology marketing. This is broader than video, so its allocation and change categories cannot be presented as video-only spending. The takeaways show selected categories. The chart uses rounded percentages, which are retained consistently below instead of mixing them with more precise prose values. Differences between this sample and Wistia's do not establish a contradiction: the populations and budget definitions are different.

What shaped the work that video budgets supported?

Content popularity is not a spending allocation. Use production choices to understand what teams are trying to fund, then price the actual workload.

Which factors influenced video-type decisions?

  • Product/service launches: 53%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Market trends/analysis: 42%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Customer feedback: 33%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Competitor activity: 23%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Industry events/news: 19%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Creative-team input: 18%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Previous campaign results: 18%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • SEO/keyword research: 17%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)

Wistia asked which factors influenced the types of video companies made. The company-goal and perceived-return findings appear in the takeaways; the remaining influences are listed below. These response shares do not divide a budget into spending categories. Several influences can apply to the same team, and choosing a format because of a launch does not show whether it performed well. A useful brief links the requested asset to a concrete customer need and a measurable purpose before allocating production time.

Which established video formats did teams produce?

  • Educational: 57%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Social: 57%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Webinars: 56%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Product: 55%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Customer testimonials: 38%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Ads: 37%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)

Wistia's survey identifies the share of respondents producing each named format. Educational, social, webinar, product, testimonial and advertising videos describe different jobs within a marketing program. The percentages show participation, not the number of assets made or the share of spending consumed. A team can produce several formats, and a webinar may later become social clips or educational material. Do not add these shares as if they were mutually exclusive budget lines. For planning, specify the deliverables, revisions, distribution channels and accessibility requirements attached to each format. That creates a meaningful workload estimate without assuming that a common format is automatically the most profitable investment.

Which other formats competed for production resources?

  • Support: 23%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Sales: 23%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Company culture: 23%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Podcasts: 18%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Online courses: 16%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Original series: 5%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)

Wistia also records support, sales, culture, podcast, course and original-series production. Their presence shows that a video budget can support work beyond customer acquisition. A support asset may reduce repeated explanations, while a culture video may serve recruitment or internal communication. The survey does not quantify those returns, so none is assumed here. Format choices also overlap: a course can contain educational videos, and a podcast can generate shorter clips. Allocate time to the actual production and maintenance tasks instead of adding format percentages into an invented content mix. The findings provide vocabulary for a planning discussion, not a formula for distributing every company's spend.

Which people and constraints shaped production capacity?

Money alone does not determine output. Ownership, approval delays and the ability to finish usable assets can limit production even when a budget exists.

How did teams organize production and supporting work?

  • Mostly external: 20%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Agency of record: 4%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Freelancer-led: 3%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Fully in-house: 27%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Outsourced-production annual increase: 7%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Teams taking accessibility steps: 90%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)

Vidico describes creative-production operating models, while Wistia reports outsourcing growth and accessibility work in its video research. The hybrid-model finding is already in the takeaways. These studies use different respondents and definitions, so they should not be merged into one staffing distribution. A hybrid arrangement can involve internal specialists, agencies and freelancers without fixing their respective workloads. Wistia's outsourcing change retains its published label; it is not converted into a percentage-point movement. Accessibility work also belongs in the production scope instead of being treated as a discretionary final polish.

What prevented teams from making more videos?

  • Cost: 44%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Technical capability: 26%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Ideas/stories: 14%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)
  • Executive buy-in: 13%. (Wistia, Apr 2026)

Wistia's respondents described several barriers to additional production. The company-size and resources finding is in the takeaways, with the remaining obstacles below. These are reported constraints, not independently audited reasons for missed deadlines. A technical limitation can require training, better equipment or a simpler production approach, while executive buy-in may concern priorities instead of money. Diagnose the specific bottleneck before deciding that a larger budget will solve it. The survey also does not say how much each constraint costs or whether overcoming it produces a commercial return. An internal review should pair the reported problem with evidence from actual briefs, schedules and completed assets.

Where did B2B creative workflows get delayed?

  • Production capacity: 42%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Internal approvals: 38%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Editing/versioning: 33%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Brief clarity: 32%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Legal/compliance review: 30%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Reporting/measurement: 30%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Localization: 29%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)

Vidico's creative-workflow findings distinguish capacity, approvals, editing, brief quality, review, measurement and localization. These are broader creative operations, not video-specific delay rates. A respondent can encounter several bottlenecks at once. An unclear brief can generate revisions, while a late approval can delay work that is otherwise complete. The chart does not establish the time or cost attributable to each issue, so the percentages should not be converted into financial losses. Use the categories to identify the handoff that needs plainer ownership, then track whether the change reduces rework in your own program.

Where did creative budgets move and what was vulnerable to cuts?

Reallocation is a tradeoff between competing work. A reported preference for more activity does not reveal the amount moved or demonstrate that it paid back.

Which conversion-related activities attracted reallocation?

  • Website/landing pages: 38%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Sales enablement: 35%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Creative operations/tools: 30%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)

Vidico reports where B2B technology teams were reallocating creative investment. The paid-social and customer-proof results appear in the takeaways; the remaining related destinations follow. The question concerns the broader creative budget, not an isolated video advertising account. Website work and sales-enablement assets can include text, design and other formats alongside video. Multiple destinations can receive attention from one team, so the shares are not an exclusive split of expenditure. These findings suggest useful questions for a budget review: which customer decision does the asset support, who will distribute it and what existing work can be reused? They do not establish a standard spending ratio.

Which other activities received more creative attention?

  • Events/community: 30%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Product storytelling/demos: 27%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Brand/top-of-funnel: 24%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Localization: 19%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)

Vidico's reallocation chart also includes events, product storytelling, brand activity and localization. Each category represents a destination for creative resources instead of an independently measured return. A localization plan may require translation, dubbing, review and adaptations across markets, while an event may generate material that serves several later uses. The survey does not price those tasks or determine their relative value. Keep the source population attached to the figures when sharing them outside B2B technology. For an actual allocation decision, name the audience, the distribution plan and the cost of keeping an asset accurate after launch. Those details make a spending proposal reviewable.

Which activities were first in line for cuts?

  • Large hero productions: 13%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Always-on volume: 9%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Brand campaigns: 18%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Experimentation: 17%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • External agencies: 15%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Internal hires: 16%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Tools/software: 12%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)
  • Other: 0.4%. (Vidico, Jun 2026)

Vidico asked what gets cut first when budgets tighten. The chart's rounded categories below describe respondents' priorities, not observed reductions in expenditure. A category appearing frequently is not evidence that cutting it improves performance. Brand activity, experimentation and always-on production serve different time horizons. Reducing one can affect the supply of ideas or demand available to another later. The percentages therefore support a tradeoff discussion instead of a universal cost-cutting prescription. Preserve the source's rounding and its small other category, and avoid treating a selected answer as the amount of money removed from that activity.

How were Australian agencies planning media investment?

Agency investment intentions add a national buying perspective to production surveys. They should remain Australian and agency-specific when quoted in a global planning document.

Which concerns affected investment planning?

IAB Australia asked agency decision makers about their greatest investment concerns. The responses below refer to the original Australian survey instead of the separate US study also reproduced in the report. Respondents could select several issues. A concern about measurement does not establish that a campaign failed, and concern about inflation is not an estimate of the actual price increase. Keep the survey's planning period attached to each finding. These categories can structure a risk discussion, but the importance of any issue depends on the campaign, inventory and measurement arrangements in question.

Which goals and allocation changes did agencies put first?

IAB Australia separates top investment goals from plans to spend more on brand or performance advertising. These are different questions and do not form one exclusive budget distribution. Respondents selected a limited set of goals, whereas the allocation statements describe expected direction. A brand objective can coexist with an immediate conversion objective, and an increase says nothing about its dollar magnitude. The findings should not be presented as proof that one objective outperforms the other. They describe what this agency sample intended to put first.

Which video environments were expected to gain investment?

IAB Australia's format chart reports the share of agencies expecting more investment relative to the previous year. The subscription-streaming result is in the takeaways; other video-related categories follow. These are intentions, not completed purchases or market-growth forecasts. The report's later narrative gives a different programmatic-CTV percentage; this article retains the original investment-chart value and discloses that inconsistency. Categories can overlap in a media plan, so their shares must not be added. Compare the audience, inventory, pricing and measurement terms of an actual proposal before using a popular destination as a reason to spend.

Glossary

Methodology and sources

Every figure on this page comes from the organisation that produced it: regulators, statistics offices, public bodies, research institutes, and companies reporting their own data or surveys. Each one links to the original report or dataset and carries its release date. Survey results keep their population and fieldwork period, and financial figures keep the measure the producer used. Figures from different producers are not added together or ranked against each other. The page is reviewed monthly and updated when a producer releases newer data.