Video Marketing Statistics Updated November 2026

Human Written & Fact Checked · Updated

100 Webinar Statistics for 2026

Before you benchmark a webinar, decide what success means. Registration, live attendance, replay viewing and a click on a next step each describe a different part of the audience journey.

This evidence-led collection compares original platform observations and practitioner surveys without blending their populations. Annual findings, pooled observations and report editions retain their own dates. Use the measures to ask better questions about your program, instead of treating another platform's average as a promised result.

Headline figures

  • TwentyThree's 2026 report found 45% of surveyed organizations had increased webinar output. (TwentyThree, Mar 2026)
  • Lead generation was a planned webinar use for 69.4% of Livestorm's surveyed practitioners. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • A dedicated webinar manager was reported by 19% of TwentyThree's surveyed organizations. (TwentyThree, Mar 2026)
  • Turning registrants into attendees questioned 54.2% of Livestorm's surveyed teams. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Univid reported an average of 102 live attendees in its pooled platform sample. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • Livestorm's 2025 platform data showed a 47.7% live show-up rate. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Event-day signups accounted for 15.3% of Livestorm's 2025 registrations. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Thursday attendance reached 64% in TwentyThree's 2026 report. (TwentyThree, Mar 2026)
  • Live reactions were enabled in 92% of webinars in Univid's pooled sample. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • Livestorm reported 15.4% active participation for sessions lasting 60–75 minutes. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Univid reported a 22% attendee-to-CTA-click rate where a CTA was enabled. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • Univid sessions with 50–100 attendees recorded a 26% CTA-click rate. (Univid, Sep 2026)

How widely and for what purposes were webinars used?

Webinar volume is a workload measure before it is a success measure. Separate how frequently teams run sessions from what they want those sessions to accomplish.

How many webinars did organizations run?

TwentyThree reports a wide distribution of annual webinar activity among its survey respondents. The categories below describe organization-level output, not the share of individual events on the platform. This distinction prevents a busy organizer from being mistaken for a typical event. A company hosting many sessions can have a different audience, staffing model and educational purpose from a company running occasional launches. Use the distribution to frame production capacity instead of to prescribe a publishing target. The report's exact observation window is not disclosed, so these figures retain the edition label instead of being assigned an assumed calendar-year fieldwork date.

Did organizations increase or reduce webinar output?

TwentyThree asked respondents whether their webinar output had changed from the previous year. The increase result appears in the takeaways, while the remaining response categories are shown below. A reported increase says nothing about its magnitude. A team adding a small number of sessions and a team expanding substantially can select the same response. The question also does not demonstrate market-wide growth, because a producer survey is not a census of all businesses. Compare a local program with its own staffing, customer needs and prior activity before drawing a planning conclusion. Output can rise while attendance quality or operational efficiency moves in another direction, which this measure alone cannot resolve.

Which purposes did practitioners plan for webinars?

  • Product demonstrations: 61.9%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Customer training: 42.8%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Thought leadership: 36.7%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Advisory sessions: 28.1%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Healthcare-professional engagement: 4.7%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)

Livestorm's practitioner survey covers intended uses extending beyond acquiring prospects. The remaining choices below complement the lead-generation finding in the takeaways and refer to planned activity. An intention is not evidence that the event occurred or achieved its desired result. Training an existing customer also has a different audience and success criterion from attracting a new buyer. Keep those distinctions when planning the invitation, agenda and follow-up. Multiple uses may apply to the same organization, so percentages should not be added into an exclusive allocation. These responses support a purpose-led content plan; they do not rank the profitability of the webinar formats or establish which format every business should adopt.

What resources and obstacles shaped webinar delivery?

Reliable delivery depends on people, preparation and ownership. A platform can support that process, but its feature list does not establish whether a team has the capacity to run it well.

Who could operate webinars and how much work was involved?

TwentyThree distinguishes ownership arrangements, operator capacity and preparation workload. These questions measure different aspects of delivery, even when similar percentages appear in their answers. The dedicated-manager result is in the takeaways. Workload refers to preparing, running and distributing a webinar, not simply its time on screen. Operator capacity describes how many people can set up and run an event; it is not a headcount of full-time webinar employees. Preserve those definitions before using the results in a staffing discussion. Shared ownership may still require an explicitly assigned host, moderator and technical contact for an individual session.

Which departments participated in webinar programs?

TwentyThree's survey reports involvement from several functions. Department participation is not an exclusive assignment of ownership, and a program can involve several teams simultaneously. The results can inform a conversation about who needs input into an event, but cannot determine a universal organizational chart. Sales participation may concern invitations or follow-up, while product participation may concern the demonstration itself. The source does not make those responsibilities identical across respondents. Before allocating work, name the event's purpose and identify who can answer questions, approve claims and support the next customer action. A department appearing in a benchmark does not establish its effort, budget or contribution to revenue.

Which problems did practitioners encounter?

  • Generating registrations: 43.6%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Following up: 38.2%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Interactive experience: 28.4%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Production quality: 26.3%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Data/attribution: 21.8%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Securing speakers: 15.2%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Promotion: 13%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Repurposing: 11.5%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Budget constraints: 9.9%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)

Livestorm's survey describes difficulties from audience acquisition through follow-up and production. The registration-to-attendance difficulty appears in the takeaways; the other reported obstacles follow here. These are respondents' experiences, not independently audited failure rates. A team can report several problems, and their severity can differ even when they receive the same response label. Use the findings to structure an internal review instead of to infer that a particular system is broken. Identify the stage where people drop out, the evidence available and the person responsible for improving it. A clear diagnosis should precede a change to budget, format or software.

How many people registered and attended?

Attendance statistics need an explicit denominator and viewing mode. A live show-up rate and a live-or-replay participation rate should never be presented as interchangeable measures.

What did Livestorm observe about registrations and live attendance?

  • Live show-up, 2024: 48.9%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Registrants per session: 175. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Live attendees per session: 83. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)

Livestorm reports average registration and live-attendee counts alongside annual show-up rates. Its current annual rate is in the takeaways, while the remaining measures below provide context. Platform averages describe the sampled events instead of the expected audience for a particular organizer. The prior-year rate is a separate observation and does not establish that the customer mix stayed constant. Dividing rounded average attendees by rounded average registrants need not reproduce a published aggregate rate exactly. Keep the publisher's rate and denominator definition intact. For a local performance review, compare events serving similar audiences and purposes, then examine the invitation source and timing before attributing a change to presentation quality.

How large were webinars in Univid's sample?

  • Below 100 attendees: 71%. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • Below 50 attendees: 50%. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • 501–1,000 attendees: around 3%. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • Above 1,000 attendees: around 1%. (Univid, Sep 2026)

Univid reports an average live audience and several event-size shares. The average appears in the takeaways; the distribution figures below show why a single average is insufficient for planning. These size thresholds are not all mutually exclusive. The group below the smaller threshold is included in the group below the larger threshold, so adding them would double-count events. The largest audience categories retain the source's approximate wording. Univid pools several years of activity and includes different customer uses, which limits direct comparison with an annual benchmark from another platform. Treat audience size as context for moderation and relevance, instead of assuming a larger room necessarily produces a better commercial result.

How did live and combined attendance differ?

  • Live attendance: 49%. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • Live-or-replay attendance: 57%. (Univid, Sep 2026)

Univid distinguishes live attendance from participation through either the live session or its replay. The combined measure offers another viewing opportunity and therefore answers a different question. These rates come from the same publisher's pooled dataset, but should not be merged with another platform's annual figures. A replay viewer may engage at a different time and encounter different follow-up than someone attending live. Maintain separate reporting for access, attendance and any subsequent action. The source also contains inconsistent claims about overlapping live and replay audience shares; those disputed breakdowns are excluded here. The retained rates describe attendance modes without asserting a complete partition of viewers or implying that replay access caused additional sales.

When did registration and attendance happen?

Timing patterns are associations within a particular audience. They are a starting point for testing, not proof that moving every event to the same day will improve results.

How close to an event did people register?

  • Registration, 3+ weeks early: 16.4%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Registration, 2–3 weeks early: 11.4%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Registration, 1–2 weeks early: 22.6%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Registration, 2–6 days early: 26.2%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Registration, previous day: 8.2%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)

Livestorm's registration table groups signups by time remaining before the event. The event-day share is in the takeaways, while the earlier intervals below describe the rest of the registration journey. These are shares within timing intervals, not cumulative totals. They should not be confused with the cumulative height used in the source's area chart. Late registration does not by itself prove that early promotion was unnecessary: someone can first encounter an invitation well before completing the form. Track first exposure separately if that distinction counts to a campaign decision. The benchmark describes observed registrations and does not measure the incremental return from spending at each point in the promotion calendar.

Which weekdays hosted the most webinars?

TwentyThree reports how its platform's webinars were distributed across weekdays. This measures scheduling choices, not the probability that a registered person attended. The distribution may reflect organizer availability, established routines or audience preferences that the chart does not separately identify. A popular day can also bring competing invitations. Avoid turning a share of events into a recommendation without considering time zones, professional schedules and the intended audience. Compare similar sessions under a consistent promotion approach if testing another day. The publisher's observation window is not precisely disclosed on the report page, so this is an edition-specific benchmark instead of a claim about every month of the current year.

How did attendance rates vary by weekday?

TwentyThree separately reports weekday attendance rates. Its Thursday result is in the takeaways; the other days below retain their attendance denominator instead of the event-share denominator. These results do not establish that the day itself caused the difference. Events scheduled on different days can attract different audiences or cover different subjects. A useful local test would hold the audience, invitation process and session purpose as consistent as hands-on. Also confirm the time zone and viewing-mode definition before comparing a company report with an external reference. Read a weekday benchmark as an observation that may suggest a test, not an instruction to move a program without considering customer needs.

What did engagement measures actually describe?

Enabling an interaction is different from someone using it. Keep feature availability, audience participation and message volume separate when judging the quality of a session.

How did engagement differ across shorter session ranges?

  • 30–44 minutes, attendees: 152. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • 30–44 minutes, chats/person: 0.40. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • 30–44 minutes, participation: 12.5%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • 45–59 minutes, attendees: 161. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • 45–59 minutes, chats/person: 0.49. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • 45–59 minutes, participation: 14.2%. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)

Livestorm reports audience size, chat activity and active participation for separate duration ranges. The measures below retain their units so a chat average cannot be mistaken for a participation percentage. A duration group is not a randomized treatment. Subject complexity, format and audience selection can affect both how long a session lasts and how people interact with it. Therefore these figures cannot prove that extending a presentation creates engagement. Use a comparable group to identify questions worth investigating, then inspect the agenda and audience behavior. An event can have a large audience yet relatively little conversation, while a smaller workshop may involve more exchanges per person.

What did the longer session comparison show?

  • 60–75 minutes, attendees: 205. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • 60–75 minutes, chats/person: 0.58. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)

Livestorm's longer-session group combines an attendee count with a chat-per-person average and an active-participation rate. The participation figure is already in the takeaways. The other measures below help distinguish audience scale from interaction intensity. Chat messages per person are not the fraction of people posting messages: repeated messages from an active participant can change the average. The publisher's participation measure should be retained as defined in its reporting, not silently replaced by a chat-only measure. When assessing a local event, preserve the counting rules and review whether a question-and-answer segment, workshop exercise or moderator prompt changed the opportunity to participate. A benchmark is most useful when the interaction design is comparable.

Which engagement features were enabled?

  • Chat enabled: 63%. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • Q&A enabled: 49%. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • Polls enabled: 40%. (Univid, Sep 2026)

Univid reports whether hosts enabled reaction, chat, question and polling tools. The reaction result appears in the takeaways; the remaining enabled-feature shares follow below. Availability does not tell you whether attendees used a feature, how often they used it or whether the response was meaningful. A poll left unanswered and a lively discussion can both occur in sessions with the same tools enabled. Choose an interaction because it fits the audience's task, then measure actual responses separately. These features can coexist, so their percentages are not an exclusive allocation. The dataset covers a pooled period and should not be presented as an adoption measure for all webinar platforms or all businesses today.

What counted as attention or conversion?

A conversion label is incomplete without the action it counts. Here, a CTA conversion means a click; it is not a purchase, qualified opportunity or demonstrated return on investment.

How were session attention and CTA availability measured?

  • Average session duration: 68 minutes. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Average watch time: 26 minutes. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Questions per session: 20.4. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • Polls per session: 2.77. (Livestorm, Sep 2026)
  • CTA enabled: 70%. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • Two CTAs, click rate: 25%. (Univid, Sep 2026)

Livestorm reports session-level attention and interaction summaries, while Univid reports CTA availability and clicking. Their measurements describe different populations and should remain separately attributed. Univid's overall CTA-click result is in the takeaways. Watching, asking a question and clicking a next step are distinct actions; none automatically establishes buying intent. The session-duration and watch-time averages also use different units of observation, so they should not be treated as a complete audience-retention curve. Decide which customer action counts before setting a target. A download of supporting material may be useful without qualifying someone for sales follow-up, and a session can serve education without generating an immediate click.

How did CTA clicking relate to engagement?

  • One CTA, click rate: 22%. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • All engagement features, CTA clicks: 33%. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • 0–1 reactions/person, CTA clicks: below 20%. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • 5–10 reactions/person, CTA clicks: 69%. (Univid, Sep 2026)

Univid reports CTA-click outcomes for different feature and reaction conditions. These comparisons describe associations in platform observations, not randomized evidence that a feature causes a commercial outcome. Reaction intensity can reflect an already interested audience, a lively host or a topic that naturally invites participation. Those factors can also influence clicks. Preserve the source's less-than qualifier for the low-reaction group instead of converting it into an exact point estimate. The CTA-count comparisons likewise do not demonstrate a universal optimum for every event. Consider the nature of the requested action, its relevance to the session and the audience's readiness before interpreting an observed click rate as a design rule.

How did CTA outcomes vary by time and audience size?

  • Afternoon CTA clicks: 29%. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • Morning CTA clicks: 22%. (Univid, Sep 2026)
  • 501–1,000 attendees, CTA clicks: 82 clicks per session. (Univid, Sep 2026)

Univid reports CTA-click rates by time of day and event size, alongside an absolute click count for a larger audience group. The smaller-audience rate is already in the takeaways. A rate and a count answer different questions. A larger event can produce more clicks even when a smaller event has a stronger conversion rate. The time-of-day comparisons also depend on the platform's customer mix and scheduling context; they are not a universal recommendation across time zones. Evaluate whether the next step suits the viewer before optimizing for raw interaction. If the actual objective is a sale or completed training, measure that downstream result separately instead of assuming every CTA click has equal value.

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.