I have published this video this morning. In it, I note that it's now three months since we re-launched our video channels, just in time for the general election. That means it's time to ask what you really want of these videos now political times return to something more normal. Please let us know.
The transcript is:
What do you want these videos to do? It's a question I want to ask now because we relaunched our videos in April this year and Rishi Sunak certainly did us a favour by calling an election campaign. Traffic has increased considerably, and I thank you for that.
But the point is that three months into this exercise we're discovering things that we didn't know.
First of all, we thought we needed shorts, and we've discovered that short videos are not nearly as popular as longer ones.
Second, we thought that we needed to make videos of less than five minutes, and now we've discovered that sometimes people like longer ones if the topic is relevant. In fact, one of the videos that has been watched most of all is one of nearly nine minutes.
And "What do you want?” is, therefore, the question that I'm asking, and we will read the comments that are going to be posted in response to this video to see what you say.
The reason why is they will influence what we will now produce.
It's much easier to produce a video of three minutes, by the way, than it is to produce a video of one minute. By and large, a one-minute video takes us up to five takes because I have a habit of producing videos that are about one minute and seven seconds long, and that's hard to correct. A three-minute video is much easier to get right in terms of the balance of content. So, would it be better to produce one or two three-minute videos a day rather than one long and one short?
Would it be better to produce just one a day?
Will you be happy with a video of up to nine minutes occasionally?
And what are the topics? We've obviously been focusing very heavily on issues around current politics in the UK over the recent weeks because, well, there's been a general election campaign. Why wouldn't we?
But, now that that is over and we're into the whole summer period when politics will go a little quieter anyway, should we be talking about more general issues about economics and politics and the way in which tax and money work and things like that? Is that what you'd like of this channel?
I don't know the answers to these questions and so we're genuinely curious to hear from you. Leave your comments down below, we will have a look and we'll decide where we're going from here.
Thanks a lot.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I would like to see:
* Economics 101
* How classic economics came about
* Classical economics vs heterodox economics
* How economics puts a spin on things (ie. lower inflation still means prices are rising)
* Different types of capitalism
* Where capitalism is useful
* Different types of socialism
* Socialist policies liked by capitalists (socialism for the well-off, capitalism for the less well-off)
* Interviews with movers and shakers: Stephanie Kelton, Gary Stevenson, Kate Raworth, Yuan Yang MP
That should keep me going…
That’s more or less what I would like.
A lot of professional YouTubers post two longish videos – e.g. 15 mins or more – at exactly the same time each day – e.g. at 12 noon and 4.30 pm, have a Q&A livestream every week and no shorts whatsoever. I’m not suggesting that you should likewise, but it might be worth taking into account what others do.
I suspect that the occasional short is good for advertising a channel, especially to a younger audience. Again it seems a good idea to release them on a fixed schedule – e.g. at 10 am every Wednesday and Saturday.
It is probably worth trying to work something topical into each video and to mention it in the title. Although it is important to make sure it really is relevant to the discussion in the video, or people like me will find it irritating.
In the end, what sort of videos you post depends on the audience you are posting for. For instance, on his philosophy channel, Kane Baker posts videos of between 40 and 60 mins at irregular intervals but attracts a lot of philosophy students.
Remember, this is a very part time job – I cannot spend more than s day or so a week on this..plus the bloig
That prevents some of this
BUT we do post at set times already – in the morning – although most veiws are in the evening
We could split the timing I guess if we keep doing two a day
As for the live stream – my concern is trolling, and I am by no means always available at the same time – there are day jobs to do, and I fear that would make them very hard
As for interviews – they take a lot of time to set up, in my experience and until I retire from the day jobs (it will happen) I just can’t see where that comes from either.
But that has given much to think about
Livestreams do attract trolls. Most channels that use them have a small army of moderators to keep the trolls at bay.
And that is a resource I do not have
*Different types of socialism
This is an excellent topic for a video or thread post. What countries have what type of socialism would be a good thread or video topic too.
But not my expertise, I think
I think “different types of socialism” really is a burden too far.. …
I’ve been reading up on various aspects of liberal and left thinking as well as conventional economics for more than 55 years now, inspired by Orwell, HG Wells, and Priestley as a very young teen, and still haven’t got much past first base, even with economics as part of my degree.
Just establishing the nuances within Marxist-Leninism (a fruitless exercise imo) would be a lifetime’s reading, let alone working out the contrasts between evolving libertarian* socialism with Marxian authoritarian forms in the 19thC.
The history is fascinating though and even more crazy than many of these dynastic fantasies.
* Libertarianism in European political thought is virtually nothing like American libertarianism, but with a few exceptions.
Then there are strange bedfellows like Pyotr Kropotkin and Adam Smith – whose thoughts coincided closely on theories of moral sentiments.
It can be fun reading across philosophers and polemicists, but the styles of writing are incredibly varied, often turgid, and even more often highly repetitive.
My, there are a lot of egos too !!
TBH I’m not sure that ‘different types of socialism’ wouldn’t qualify as a form of sadism or masochism, depending who was on the receiving end.
Agreed
Democratisation of the Bank of England?
It is on a list…
i agree with Ian. Incidentally, Party politics on your blog i now find quite boring
but keep up the good work
i see your videos on youtube these days, well worth it.
I don’t do party politucs
I might do anti-party politics
More a general comment. You are dedicated, as are many on here, to creating a fairer, more equitable, more sustainable economy and society. Tie that ambition in to each central theme of the videos, where appropriate.
Noted
This is more an observatio. On the videos, not the shorts. Titles are really important in generating views and engagement. Your channel sets out to educate – so will attract views from people looking for serious answers and explanation.
In general, for this sort of ‘educational’ YouTube content, average views are higher when the title is written as a question. That looks to be true for you channel. A statement of the unexpected works – suggesting the video offers explanation e.g. ‘We do not have a national debt’. There is good evidence that headlines that include numbers – especially big numbers, and numbers proceeded by £, $ or € will offer similar powers of attraction. ‘The UK’ s precarious £15 trillion of wealth’ was a strong performer. That title also contains a key word that seems to performs well for you, ‘wealth’. Other keywords appear to include ‘money’, ‘tax’ and ‘taxpayer ‘ (….and ‘Wes Streeting’).
Thank you
That was a valuable observation
“11 Ways to Write Exciting YouTube Titles for Your Videos”
https://maekersuite.com/blog/youtube-video-title
Thank you
Will read
Where Rod’s going, I think, is towards keyword optimisation for Youtube. Basically you research keywords related to your subject matter which Youtubers are searching for and create videos based around them which will get across the points you wish to make. This won’t really be effective for criticising party politics but will for terms related to the National Debt, Bank of England, National Deficit and so on. More general info here https://www.bu.edu/prsocial/best-practices/search-engine-optimization-seo-best-practices/ or just Google it; there’s lots! I imagine you’ll need a partner for this, it’s an art in itself. Do it properly though and I think you’d see an enormous boost to your views.
I think it is important
The subversion of Economics??
I like that..
Thank you for asking.
How about you alternate between informing and challenging? Informing – I like Ian’s proposed list, especially the idea of hearing you in conversation with key figures. Perhaps allocate a day a week/month on which we could look forward to an interview.
Challenging – I doubt the ‘Tories competence as opposition, so it may fall to you and others to provide this. Reeves makes me nervous and I shall welcome your scrutiny. What about including a ‘weekly round-up’ on Fridays?
I don’t think you can or should prescribe the duration of your videos, though I understand why you may have initially thought this important. It seems your experience confirms that where people find the content interesting and engaging they are prepared to watch for a longer duration. So what might those topics comprise? I guess it depends on your aims. Would you be prepared to offer a vote for future topics at the end of each month?
Would it be too formal/structured to create a lecture series which was released on a particular day each week? A sort of ‘Economics for Dummies’ type thing? (I so want the electorate to lose the notion of government finances being the same as a household budget!)
I suppose too much structure might make it more difficult to react to ‘events’… but some of us like to see a framework.
Thank you for all you do. I’m very grateful.
Thanks for this
Good ideas in here
I think a round up one sounds good – a chat / discussion in less frenetic style
The lecture is harder….I have other work to do for my university and that may be too much to take on
But the round uo, we like. That is under discussion
As to length, my first thought is that they should be the right length for you to make the point you want to make – neither longer or shorter than that.
And a target length should be that, not a constraint – if you’re aiming for a one minute video, and its a few seconds over, that doesn’t matter to me (if YouTube objects, perhaps a reason to move away from the format)
I would suggest the ideal is a three to five minute target, going up to nine or ten occaisionally when necessary – at that length, you’re getting into ‘too long, switched off’ territory.
I think we will abandon shorts (one minute)
But three minutes is good for many people, it seems, and is often long enough to create an argument
The length is irrelevant to me. It’s the subject matter that counts. If it takes 10 minutes, take 10 minutes. If it can be done in a minute, take a minute.
The shorter ones are probably best for simple answers to simple questions or even to post a question that leaves us thinking about the subject. Often the questions are not simple and require more time.
That said, I prefer reading to watching/listening.
The readers are here!
The watchers are elsewhere
This video is in front of them as well
Thank you….
There are a lot of interesting points in the comments already and I appreciate that I only use the blog and read the transcripts there (here?). I do feel, though, that the length should be determined by the material. This may mean that some may need to be broken down into two or more episodes. Some, mainly observations of current politics, may call for a pithy one minute, or even 30 second, video. I do feel that that may help to release the tension that all your work must create. You manage to remain remarkably patient but nevertheless, for your own mental health you deserve it and I’m sure your regular followers would enjoy it too.
I’m glad that all your attention to new ways of presenting your ideas is bearing fruit.
Thanks
I admit that by and large I don’t feel strain from this
I do from the other jobs
Please do keep the transcripts for those of us who prefer reading but would like to access the video content. I also like the way that you are up front that you are often responding to your audience, it makes for an interactive and generous sensibility to the whole thing.
Thanks
I would like to see:
a description and explanation of u.k. Capacity utilisation i.e unused wealth creating
capacity.
Interesting….
I imagine that a number of MPs in Starmer’s new Government, if not Starmer himself, are monitoring this blog. If not, they really are a lot more out of touch than we all thought. With that in mind, your videos need to provide the scrutiny often poorly articulated by BBC interviewers and even overlooked by all too many opposition MPs. While Laura K robotically repeats questions she knows will remain unanswered, you have the opportunity to target your points in a variety of different ways in successive videos to maintain public interest.
One area to return to frequently is the “no money left” hoax. This myth needs to be thoroughly debunked in the eyes of the public, to the point where even the BBC picks up on it and starts grilling Rachel Reeves on this buried discrepancy. If the Starmer Team are monitoring this blog, as I think they must be, this topic will really bother them as they start to realize that the public are undoubtedly becoming really well informed. If you can fully expose the truth it may save us from yet another brutal round of unnecessary austerity.
By the way, wearing the dark shirt does make a positive difference, because in a video it provides better visual contrast with the books behind you.
Thanks, noted, and thanks
@Kim Sanders-Fisher –
I like the dark shirt too!
I will need some new shirts for the winter then, when long sleeves return. My stylist is on the case. For the first time in years I am not getting my own way on this issue
One of the disadvantages of stardom!
Is there anything more to be said on BoE interest rate setting and the influence of the Fed / ECB rates , and worries about exchange rates and terms of trade? As opposed just to the inflation target.
Someone recently was saying how low interest rates had boosted wealth inequality over the last twenty years – especially in house prices – in contrast to the often argued case on here that it is high interest rates that boost inequality. Maybe there is more to be said on this?
As though you havent enough to do!
I think a lot of things have boosted house prices: Thatcher’s right to buy, mortgages being provided by banks instead of building societies, lack of rent controls making buy-to-let more attractive and even government schemes to help first time buyers. Low interest rates obviously make a mortgage more affordable and will have some effect on house prices, but I suspect that, on the whole, high interest rates cause more inequality than low rates.
I don’t have any figures to back up my suspicion, but the situation looks rather complicated and there will not be one simple answer for the rapid increase in house prices over the past few decades.
Much appreciate your work as always Richard. As a retired academic, my thoughts often default to education. Your question brought to mind a statistics course developed by University of Auckland for delivery online through the UK Open University’s free platform Futurelearn. Course design ‘rules’ and limitations of the platform left most of us sceptical. How wrong we were and pleased to be. Enrolments hit thousands, the course reran many times and was picked up by other institutions (probably under licence). It might still be going for all I know. Anyway it allowed subject matter experts to share their wisdom with people around the world who contributed to course discussions. It also let them off the hook after initial work as tutors dealt with learner management.
So “You are dedicated, as are many on here, to creating a fairer, more equitable, more sustainable economy and society.”
How about an online course (the title in the quote is fine) in partnership with an organisation like Futurelearn? An opportunity to reach further than you can alone and no need to change anything you do (blogs, videos, discussions ..) Just another way to package and present your wisdom to the world as reusable resources. As for focus and format, let topical issues and subject matter dictate. I think you nail it every time. Thanks.
Those courses may well be the aim
I need to retire from the day job…..
Couldn’t it be part of your day job?
I don’t have a teaching contract…..
A lot more work goes into online courses than meets the eye. I have a friend who runs online language courses, mainly in Chinese and Japanese. He seems to be permanently busy.
I am already….