An Analysis of My YouTube View Stats Reveals CONTENT IS KING, Gear is NOT

adamr316

adamr316

Well-known member
I fully admit that I am a big gear head. I want my video and audio to be pristine. Instead of a car I bought a video camera. And I don't take having a recording studio for granted.

But sometimes I forget that the story/what the video is about matters a lot more.

Taking a look at the view counts on my YouTube page, it says a few things:


- Name recognition matters more than anything. This is apart of marketing.

- People prefer stupid videos. That's what they want to see. That's what they share with others.

My documentary about Michael Moore: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q50ApLXqo4E - over 58,000 views on part 1 and it would have been more if I wouldn't have marked it private for a year. Gear used? JVC DV-500 standard def camera, one of the cheap Sony lav mics (55b I think) and some Mole-Richardson lights.

Second most popular video but what is NOT through name recognition is this one with 49,000+ views (maybe NSFW) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgQvFoi6WB4 - Gear used: A sub-$1.5k Panasonic SD camera (could have been shot on my cell phone and still got this many views).

Finally my third most popular video (close to 44k views) is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r50vxc9sZ5M . Again shot with a JVC DV500 camera.


The two videos I got national media attention with were a "talking head" video about FOX's Glee that complimented a petition http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f2c5CTf0Vs (Gear: Sony EX1) and another about my experience with bad customer service. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xNhaFEIgM0 (Gear: Sony Handycam) if you'd like to see them.

Glee press (links to the petition which has a link to the video) : http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b150204_glees_great_music_aint.html

Customer Service press: http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/05/smbusiness/customer_service.fsb/index.htm


So any way in every single one of these instances the gear did not matter. Maybe one or two people have asked me which camera I've used or some other production question. But if you read the comments people are connecting with the content.

And these videos are just found. I'll admit I stupidly spend hours upon hours working on a video but I might spend an hour promoting it. If I spent just as much or even half the time marketing the videos (sharing because I'm not really selling anything) then they would have even more views. The importance of marketing can NEVER be understated.

Now if I could go back in time and shoot everything with my EX1 or a better camera and record the audio with better mics would I? Yes. Would it make a difference to the view count? Probably not.

So again, let's tell some awesome stories and stop worrying so much about the gear!

Ask yourself, what do people care about? Why SHOULD they see my film? What will compel them to watch it?

If it's a passion project and you don't care how many people see it that's fine. But I'd guess that most of us want eye balls in front of our videos. After all we did put tons of:

- Thought (ideas are a dime a dozen, a great idea is gold)

- Time (sacrificing a lot)

- Blood (I hurt myself every time I shoot video for some reason, how about you?)

- Sweat (running from cops)

- Tears (crying for being in jail for not having a permit)


into these projects. I think we all just get exhausted after the export bar hits 100% and at that point we're sick of seeing/hearing/talking about the video. But gosh darn it the work isn't done yet!

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Gear used has never been a gauge of viewer engagement. To the end consumer, story, entertainment, etc. is #1 value. Now if the production value gets in the way of enjoying the story, then it is noticed, When it is well done, it becomes invisible. The tools matter to the creator - did it inspire them, push them, remove limitations, and allow them to tell the story in the first place?

Michael
 
True that. 234K views of a fan dedicated video for Johnny Cash that I shot with a Fisher Price PixelVision camera.
Then again someone hi-jacked a live performance I shot of Lady Gaga for Aol and has over 17 million views.
Content is king.
 
:laugh:
adamr316 said:
So again, let's tell some awesome stories and stop worrying so much about the gear!
Click to expand...


Content IS king. I'm amazed at the level of delusion that exists amongst various proponents of various cameras. I look at all this stuff being posted shot on the AF100 and the F3 and I think, "meh... no major differences here with regard to image quality - especially compared any number of other cameras already in use." Yes, an audience will notice awful, terrible image quality as long as the content doesn't override it (as mentioned), but come-on - how often does an audience want for better image quality?

I saw Monsters projected from a film print in a theater recently which was shot on the EX3 and it looked better than films I saw in theaters in the 80's that were shot on 35mm film. So far the only comments I hear about Monsters has to do with the *content*, not the gear they used to make it. Absolutely, if the image quality is acceptable to an audience, and the content is compelling, then they don't give a rat's ass what it was shot on.

I mean, WE care, but that's another story :laugh:
 
Of course we're talking at the indie and internet level that folks on here would realistically be working in. A lot of huge blockbusters make millions by shooting absolutely inane stories with top gear. :)
 
Hehe, this all raises the question though:

If content is king, what is queen?


I have my answer but I'm curious to hear everyone else first.
 
bill totolo said:
True that. 234K views of a fan dedicated video for Johnny Cash that I shot with a Fisher Price PixelVision camera.
Then again someone hi-jacked a live performance I shot of Lady Gaga for Aol and has over 17 million views.
Content is king.
Click to expand...

Wow man that sucks. Yeah I can't stand the YouTube channels that are just reposting other people's stuff.

There are plenty of videos up there that are literally just people who videotaped their computer screen, speaker sound and all and then posted that video up.

Seriously?
 
randin said:
Of course we're talking at the indie and internet level that folks on here would realistically be working in. A lot of huge blockbusters make millions by shooting absolutely inane stories with top gear. :)
Click to expand...

I blame re-writes, LOL. If you read enough screenwriter magazines or talk to some of them their unique story was pretty much trashed and turned into cookie cutter garbage. A lot of the plot holes in movies are due to the rewrites on and off set. Sadly...
 
I just watched your Doc on Moore. It was very good! I really didn't see anything a more expensive setup would do for it.

We sometimes forget that not all films require flash and dazzle. This often frightens newcomers, some very talented, away from filmmaking.
 
In the corporate world, top brands cannot get away from low quality videos.

Even Old Spice Body Wash now with YouTube viral videos have a pretty decent crew going at it. They cannot start shooting with Flipcams. If they do use Flipcams, sure people will still enjoy the entertainment aspect of it, but subconsciously it cheapens the brand. Perhaps people will wonder if they wont spend any money on advertising, god knows how cheap they are with the ingredients of the soap!
 
Also, if you put the words 'Michael Moore' or 'man with women underwear' or 'bird in microwave' on the title of your videos, people are gonna want to watch them, pretty much regardless of the video quality. I guess you are right, content is KING...... but only for mindless time-filler entertainment purposes.
 
Content is king, always has been. Combine that with production value and you get paid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top