|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready…
|
When I was growing up, I knew I wanted to be a content creator. I was obsessed with YouTube, guzzling content from the likes of Seananners, Tobuscus, Yogscast, Rooster Teeth, Freddy Wong…etc. Teenage Duncan fecking loved them, although some of it would make me cringe now. Back then, movies were dope too. And games were truly mind blowing.
Content warning: Grumpiness. Do I still agree with everything I wrote here, now that time has passed? Yes and no. It’s still valid, and you’ll see some data backing it up below, but I know it’s quite arrogant to use the literal words “back then, movies were dope” as if movies coming out now can’t also be dope (spoiler: they can be, and often are). An interesting blip of an article written when I was clearly quite grumpy, left online for posterity.
I knew I had to be a part of it, even in just some small way. I went to Film School specifically to learn more about video production, with the intention of doing web content – not films.
It’s been more than a decade since my Film School days, and a lot has changed in that time. IMO, not all for the best.
You’re not crazy. Content is getting worse. Or, if not worse, at least more risk averse
Content is business, and businesses are traditionally quite averse to risk. In the past decade, content has become a riskier gambit for creators because of quite a few competing factors – more competition, tougher algorithms, changing expectations.
The YouTube algorithm, for example, increasingly favours metrics which can really only be attained through click-bait, bandwagoning and quantity. This has created a bit of a convergence on the platform – a homogenising of content so it all looks and feels more or less the same. Same thumbnails, same titles, same videos, same tone.
Plus there’s less money in Hollywood now as cinemas are de-emphasised in favour of streaming. Without the big blockbuster opening weekend (plus VHS or DVD sales) and without TV advertising, the investment return isn’t what it used to be (and the shelf life of a movie is now quite short), so studios must make content that is more certain to get immediate attention. Look at the massive uptick in “based on” media in the past decade alone. It’s more of a sure thing to tap into an existing audience than to take the risk on something new, and the more you release “based on” media, the more people expect it, and the more risky it becomes to try something original.
Kindle has almost single-handedly transformed fiction writing to a “publish as many books as you can as quick as you can” model. Anyone can publish a book these days, filling online stores like Amazon with content at all levels of the quality spectrum. Penguin RandomHouse is now up against not only other publishers, but stay-at-home mums, nerds with free time, retirees…the gamut. This changes the game for indies – if you want to earn a buck, the best way to do that these days is to produce a lot of books that all cliffhanger into each other. You put the first one free or discounted, and pour your limited marketing budget into that first novel. When people buy up all 10 books in the series because none of them have a proper ending, that’s when you earn your living. If you publish just one or two books – no matter how excellent – you often struggle to get found online, because like YouTube, the algorithms favour metrics which are generated through quantity as much as quality.
(also, as a side note, please keep an eye out for my new book “Starhero the Werewolf Chronicles: Book 1 out of 32” coming soon for free on Amazon)
But there’s an upside
Risk-averse producers make algorithm-pleasing content; consumers lap it up because it’s excedingly difficult to find anything else; consumer engagement fuels the algorithm, making it more likely risk-averse producers will make bandwagoned content. It’s a cycle that fuels itself. We’ll break out of it eventually, but not for a while.
It isn’t all doom and gloom, though. There is an upside.
There’s more money in it now for indies. Even though it’s harder to get found, harder to make the content you want, harder to be unique, there’s considerably more money available. Sponsorships, Patreon, Kickstarter, in-stream advertising, on-demand merch – none of this was really around when I was growing up. Even small-time creators can start to turn a buck. You don’t need a million followers, even just a thousand would do.
So while the quailty of content might have homogenised, your favourite creators probably earn more now than they ever could just ten years ago. This is something to celebrate! It’s a viable career for so many people.
I’m not sure what the next evolution of content will be, but I look forwards to seeing it.
UPDATE: Now with more data
The other day, I sent you a little article about how content is getting worse, and you’re not crazy for thinking it.
My suggestion was that books, TV, movies and YouTube are becoming quantifiably not as good because of the algorithmic nature of modern content – in order to get found and stay relevant in a sea of competition, one must pander to algorithms as much as viewers (if not more so).
Here’s some data that highlights this
There’s a YouTuber out there who I’m quite the fan of, who’s been around for well over a decade: videogamedunkey.
For those who don’t know his work, he’s basically a gaming satirist producing a mixture of high-weirdness shitposting and genuinely thought-provoking essays. He is probably one of the most consistent YouTubers out there, in terms of style of video versus longevity, and is quite popular.
At the end of 2020, he posted this video:
In it, he decries modern YouTube and talks about how he will put significant effort into each piece of his own content, only to be overwhelmed by the 500 Minecraft YouTubers producing homogenised, algorithm-friendly, low-effort content that is vastly more popular. He goes on to say that this is exactly what he’ll do from now on.
He was being satirical, but … it worked.
He did this for, what, two weeks? Three at most. See if you can spot in the graphs below where he swapped from his usual video content to low-effort, algorithm bandwagoning. From weekly vidoes to daily.
This is an already popular YouTuber, who was able to jump from an average of about 40k monthly subscriber growth to 110,000 by switching from his usual style to a much lower-effort, trend-based type of daily content. His monthly views jumped from around 45 million to 78 million. Given YouTubers are often paid based on quantity of viewers, a jump of 45-78 is huge. Interestingly, you can see what happened when he returned to normal.
So, if you ever wonder why your favourite YouTubers are switching from their old style which you loved to a new style which you don’t, or why movies are all about superheroes now, or why AAA games seem to have lost their ambition, this is why. Because a bit less ambition and a bit more quantity could jump your views by 33 million instantly.