We had a team meeting earlier this week. There's nothing surprising about that. We usually start the week reviewing the previous one, setting plans, and thinking a little more strategically about what we're trying to achieve.
This week we talked about our problems with YouTube. Traffic is down around 30% compared to last year, and the trend has been worsening since YouTube changed its algorithm in May.
April and May were good months for us. We reached a lot of people, which is, after all, why we make content. Traffic dipped a little in June, but we've been on YouTube long enough to know that June is usually a quieter month. July and August, however, have been markedly different.
At first, we thought this was because I'd been ill and unable to make videos for a week or so, and that YouTube was punishing us for the break in our regular posting pattern, as it is known to do. But we began to notice others reporting the same problems, and not just on YouTube but across many social media platforms.
Even very large channels, like Robert Reich's on Substack, are noting that people are tuning out, feeling alienated and fatigued by what is going on in the world. This has left them unable to face further comment on the state of both global and national politics, and the prospect of developing crises at both levels.
We also looked at this across the range of other platforms and niche themes we follow, from advanced biological and social research, which Jacqueline knows well, to photographic platforms, which Thomas and I watch, to political and economic platforms, which Jacqueline, James, and I all engage with. The pattern is consistent and is supported by research and extensive anecdotal evidence. The sense of despair around politics, the trail of destruction Trump has created, and the sense of powerlessness over crises like climate change have led some people we know, who are people we would consider politically engaged, not just to disengage from social media, but to delete their accounts entirely.
We also identified a specific YouTube problem, backed by research.
Two years ago, YouTube encouraged creators to acquire subscribers, promising it would then show their videos to those subscribers. So we focused on building our subscriber base, and now have 382,000.
Then YouTube said longer videos mattered because view time was their measure of value, so we, like others, made our videos a little longer.
Now, neither of those things matters. YouTube no longer shows videos to subscribers. Total view time no longer counts either. What matters instead is the proportion of a video watched and the likelihood a viewer will stay on YouTube afterwards.
What matters most, though, is novelty. Since May, that is what YouTube has prioritised. Loyalty is irrelevant. And if you stick to a theme like political economy, they treat you as repetitive, as they assume AI to be, even though what you're offering is expertise rather than AI-generated content. So they don't promote you.
This approach is, we know, alienating viewers. Instead of seeing videos from channels they've subscribed to, people are being served unfamiliar material heavy with advertising, whereas we, for example, refuse to allow YouTube to insert adverts into our videos. The result is that YouTube is, we are told, getting far fewer views overall. So are we, and so are most channels like ours.
On a practical level, this has consequences. At best, we will break even as an organisation if this trend continues, taking YouTube, donations, and all other income sources into account. A loss is also possible. As Jacqueline and I have agreed, that's fine for now, but if the trend continues, we'd have to reconsider. Pensions can be stretched, but only so far.
There are other consequences too. The first is that we want to generate long-term content that people might discover and return to over time. This is part of the purpose of the Understanding Economics series. Our hope is that as it develops, people who find it should work through the playlist, video by video, which is a common way of absorbing YouTube material and exactly what YouTube now wants. It may also provide a longer-term income stream, unlike most political economy content which has a short shelf life.
The other response is that we're deliberately varying our material to challenge the algorithm's assumption that we're repetitive. It is likely that I will, as a result, develop more microeconomic themes alongside our usual macroeconomic focus. These will cover work, workplace issues, decision-making, business motivation and organisation, and other related topics. These are areas I addressed throughout my career as an accountant, and they carry the same challenge to the neoliberal narrative that runs through all my work. This is an expansion, not a change of direction.
Given these changes, and the fact that I now accept that this channel and blog are my retirement project rather than a source of retirement income, I want to enjoy the process more than ever. Changing how we approach production is one way to achieve that. We are already experimenting.
As ever, I share these thoughts so you understand why there may be changes here over the coming weeks. The life of a social media content creator is an ever-changing one, and perhaps that's part of why I enjoy it. However, your opinions also matter, so some polls:
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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 won’t be voting but the bottom line is that you and the team need to produce the product that will get your message over
And you have to enjoy what you are doing
Thanks
Would putting ads on the videos help? (Most channels have them?)
We have them before and after.
I hate them in the middle of a video. They are alienating.
I don’t like adverts either, but it’s not difficult to click skip if it makes the difference between your activities being viable in your retirement and not. I really value your posts and videos, and lately, the infographics too.
Thanks
Others?
The deceitful “theatre” used by the stream media and most politicians?
”Current main stream media, and most political, language is designed to make lies sound truthful and military murders respectable and to give an appearance of validity to deceits.” (From George Orwell)
I haven’t voted in either poll, because I don’t have enough information to make a sensible decision. You and the team do, and you deserve our trust. I find it hard keeping up with the novelty just in the blog — there is so much — but I don’t go on to YouTube at all. So I’m not typical in any sense.
I would bet that if there was a financial problem more of your regulars would increase support. We value what you do.
Thanks. Appreciated.
It’s working then, flood it with doom, miss information, lies and people switch off and the real crap happens with no consequences, that is the real danger and it’s terrifying,
your one of the few sources of information i go to these days I hope you find a way to continue your content. I can only cope with one source most days and it’s often just yours.
Thank you
I sup from YouTube with a long spoon, to be honest. There are some wonderful and edifying videos on there, but the entire purpose of the platform is to consume my attention. I go on when I need to, and try to get off ASAP.
My preferred method of engagement is this blog, via a Chrome plugin for RSS feeds. Call me old school, but it works for me.
The main issue I see with diversifying is that, in departing from your core area of expertise, you will necessarily consume a lot more time & effort undertaking research. A secondary issue may be establishing credibility in new fields; however, with your background in research & academia, this should be surmountable.
I hope to soon be stable enough to set up a KoFi subscription.
Talking about the issues I mention is being on a stomping ground I long occupied.
And thank you.
I’ve recently discovered some of the psychological subjects Barry Ferns (barrys economics) explores on his YouTube channel, particularly his video on homophily and why politicians keeping getting things wrong, and it struck a chord with me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVtvr-LgD_M&t=32s
It made me wonder whether “the psychology of economics” might make an interesting subject for one of your videos. You’ve spoken in the past about things such as the disproportionate representation of elite-school educated/Oxford PPE graduates in Parliament, and also about advertising and the way it can be designed to make people dissatisfied with their lives.
Good idea….
One of my votes went for “other” as I wish for you to keep making videos that are financially lucrative for Funding the Future no matter what the topic.
All your videos are First Class so choose whatever topic you wish to comment on.
Also, I am very interested in “Campaigning” if you are referring to “HOW” politicians campaign and why they choose a certain manner of campaigning.
This is something I want to do more on…
What wonders me is:
Do you know why the video you made about Trump 2 days ago is so very successful on Youtube?
What’s the difference between it and your other last 7 videos that, give or take, have together about the same amount of views?
Is it simply the more catchy title, having “Trump” and “Failing” in it?
To me it looks like that.
And amateurishly comparing it to a german economy Youtuber (Maurice Höfgen, “Geld für die Welt”) that seems to be a part of the truth.
He releases videos “only” about every 3 – 4 days but mostly gets several 10,000 if not 100,000 views on them everytime.
And he always uses a catchy title combined with a, in my opinion, weird thumbnail that shows himself with varying facial expressions like “bewildered” to “shocked” while this thumbnail also has a slogan in it.
I wouldn’t like to see you copy that, I personally hate this kind of approach.
But this seems to be one of the Youtube-rules that the algorithm likes much more.
It’s one word: “Trump”
That pulls in a US audience.
And I won’t descend to the crass thumbnail model. I have some dignity, whatever the cost.
I have a YouTube channel which focuses on filming scenery. I’ve also noticed a marked drop in views with videos posted in July and August around 30-50% of views in June. However I suspect the drop in views might be more the consequence of a video which was slightly different in content (more weather focused), twice as long as other videos and posted on a different day than I normally post so I suspect that’s had a negative impact on the algorithm.
However YouTube shorts are doing okay within the last month I had the highest viewed shorts video since I started a year ago.
As for your YouTube channel Richard your recent videos are still being recommended to me. I’m curious about how your older videos are performing a whether there are particular themes which perform better.
I’ve noticed in recent weeks you have posted longer podcast videos at the weekend. I think it’s useful to have a different video types and themes for different days of the week. There are so many areas to cover from current events, to issues like poverty, fascism, climate and health which don’t always make headlines, to deep dives on theories like neoliberalism, economists like Keynes, other economies, historic periods like 1930s and 1970s, to explaining how the economy works to analysing policies and providing solutions.
Thank you, and we are trying to create that pattern, but the problem is that events get in the way.
Richard,
It is an enormous disgrace and hugely unfortunate that you are having to consider changing what, how, and why you do things, all due to big tech greed and the algorithms they manipulate for self-interest. Tech companies are driving society towards rage, confusion, and division, which is terrifying.
Honestly, I have reduced my engagement with your videos, blogs, and Substack because I have experienced a shift in your content. The style, presentation, and analysis do not carry the same weight and resonance as the good old ‘Tax Research UK’ days. Please do not be offended.
I know you must move with the times, and your experience can add value to topics like business decision-making, personal finance, and neurodiversity. However, I would find that content only mildly interesting. You will also face the same subscriber-attraction dilemmas. Existing creators master short, high-energy, hyperbole-driven clips designed for diminishing attention spans. Competing means changing tactics to focus on entertaining and capturing time over depth and breadth of analysis and skilled debate and thought leadership.
Your dilemma arises from a noble goal: reaching wider audiences to counter inequality, poverty, and hopelessness. Your underlying aims are to be admired. However, achieving this forces you to play by the rules of tech corporations with opposing goals.
While I believe in your sincere efforts to challenge neoliberalism, producing content tailored to corporate criteria just for algorithmic promotion risks looking like you are pandering to the forces causing harm. You recently mentioned creators like Gary Stevens leaving YouTube; would you consider leaving? I suspect not.
I wish you good luck finding a successful balance. Just be prepared that as the algorithms continuously evolve, trying to keep up may ultimately dilute your core content to fit the tech companies and their motives.
Thanks.
I note this:
“I have experienced a shift in your content. The style, presentation, and analysis do not carry the same weight and resonance as the good old ‘Tax Research UK’ days.”
I would, however, add that traffic here is still very much higher than in those days, and neurodivergence attracted a lot of views yesterday.
But what do you think I am missing now?
Richard – I only usually read the transcripts’ so not a tube viewer. Hope you can get the issues sorted to your satisfaction<p>
It may be tangential to your request on future topics – I’ve always wondered if there is a way of raising your profile level with the BBC’s favourites – IFS , P Johnson, Gill Tett, NEF, NIESR. so that they feel they have to feature you as often as them<p>
Not easy, given the deep state narrative that ‘there is no money’ must rarely if ever be questioned<p>
There might be more leverage for you if BBC had to acknowledge there exists a whole school of thought which says there is money and books don’t have to be balanced like a household.<p>
‘Post Keynes’? ‘MMT influenced’, ‘heterodox economics’?<p>
So, would there be a way of posting youtubes or blogs which would suggest you are part of, or the leading member of such a school of thought – a network of people, not all agreeing with each other , but which might include Richard Murphy, Prem Sikka, Danny Blanchflower, Kate Raworth, Mariana Mazzucato, Mary Mellor. Yanis Varoufakis, Carolyn Sissoko James Meadway? Daniela Gabor, Steve Hall, and even Ann Pettifor ?????<p>
Just a thought.
The algorithm likes Trump and the stock market.
Also I wonder what effect Gary Stevens leaving youtube has had on the algorithm. I don’t get recommended any economics at all on my home page.
If there is someone else other than you 2 who made content about Andy Burnham and economics, then I can’t find it. Someone like Owen Jones gets clicks for Andy Burnham content with the word ‘catastrophe’, ‘disaster’, ‘collapse’, ‘blood bath’, ‘hype’ written in bold yellow text on the thumbnail. 2026 politics in a nutshell.
I won’t resort to that approach
Owen does not really do economics.
Who else does? Grace Blakeley and James Meadway from a Marxist Green perspective. Not many more, regularly. More in Scotland.
I sympathise with you and the team with difficult choices. I have a feeling that the trend nowadays is towards an ever shorter attention time within the audience.
Would it be possible to make shorter videos for release 2 or 3 days a week that provide the core facts on current issues. Perhaps they could also have links to your longer videos?
Shorts have never worked for us.
We have tried. They have always failed. They reach few people and make no money, but they have a cost.
Thanks. OK, clearly not worth considering. Put it in the bin.
Richard, as others have said, you (& your team) should address the Youtube fall off by doing what you think is best whilst conserving your resources. I follow with a few comments.
1 – Burnham is the Peter principle embodied PM while the Media seem blind to key inadequacies. He knows little of foreign affairs. I can only hope you continue to skewer him, to exemplify to the Media journos what they should be doing: challenging a PM, a non-strategic thinker who has not picked up on strategic issues.
2 – More generally, continue enabling people to grasp all the disbenefits of the Neoliberal paradigm, by persistent arguments; seems essential. It empowers the people visiting your site to join the dots. I guess that’s part of ‘campaigning.’ Your ‘infographics’ is a valuable resource.
3 – Would it be possible to have some Youtube sessions with you interviewing some prominent people, obviously with you steering the agenda; perhaps with a subtext of how neoliberalism cripples what should be the operationalisation democracy and how it undermines citizenship. I’d love to see you talking with Clara Mattei or Robert Skidelski or, say, Richard Wolff.
4 – Lastly, a topic that desperately needs some focussed mention. The danger of a nuclear exchange. The US Pentagon is shifting towards a military strategy that embraces resort to tactical nuclear weapons, not least because US conventional weaponry is so depleted and because if its anachronistic ‘sitting-target’ aircraft carriers. Now, their idea of just one tactical nuclear weapon could be equivalent to multiple Hiroshimas. There is no JFK to save us this time. Instead, the Media wallows in parochial padding when there should be a huge debate.
1) We have discussed doing something on the Peter Principle here.
2) Noted
3) I don’t listen to such interviews much, so I am not keen on them. Skidelsky is dead!
4) Noted
Apparently, when someone clicks the YouTube subscribe button, a bell appears with a drop-down, from which people should select ALL (rather than the default: Personalised).
ALL gives subscribers everything, Personalised lets YouTube decide which notifications the subscribers will not get.
Might be worth getting viewers to check whether they have ALL, or the default.
We try to remind people to do this.
Richard, your website was recommended several months ago to me by a friend with whom I share the same political views. I haven’t followed UK politics for some years due to serious despair about anything substantial ever happening that I would regard as good. Since November 2020, I’ve followed US politics instead, in growing horror at the development of political tyranny there but it’s been somehow easier to watch than UK depressionism.
It’s hard to express the degree of hope your videos have given me, for the first time since 1979, with the exception of the six months prior to the 2014 referendum here in Scotland, although now that I understand more through the information you provide, I realise it would have been a mistake without having our own currency. The political changes that I’ve been desperate to see in the UK, to create a society of greater equality that genuinely cares properly for everyone, in practical ways, now actually seem to have been possible all along, rather than just my own fairy tale fantasy. It may not happen in my life time, but at least I now know it’s simply a political choice, not a dream.
I don’t know if there are other people like me, but would a change in your overall title to Funding for a Caring Future or something of that ilk help? Btw, I press the ‘Subscribe’ button on your videos every day and they come up 2nd place (don’t know why not 1st) every day. Heartfelt thanks for all you and your family do.
Very many thanks for your comment, Kate. I do appreciate what you have said. It is rewarding to know I can make a difference.
I also note your suggestion.
We changed the name three years ago. I am not sure I want to do it again as yet. I think it’s good enough right now, but we might discuss it as a team.
I wish the unions, mine included (Unite), would get more involved in economic debate. Sharon Graham is fixated on having regular wins for relatively small numbers of workers but I’d like to see a bigger union agenda around sectoral balances, just transition, whether nuclear power makes any sense, how to distribute not just income but food, housing, water and energy equitably.
Much to agree with
The series about the Politics of Care seems really evolutionary to me. The old world of neoliberalism is dying and the new Politics of Care is struggling to be born. You can tell what a country cares about by where it spends its money. Highlighting the iniquity of Govt support for the wealthy over support for the needy and buying weapons rather than support for the disabled is useful in my view. Thank you for your clarity of insight.
Thank you
Hello Richard. I voted ‘other’. I’ve been watching & reading your work for a year or so. Thank you! Economics is a subject I’d hadn’t paid much attention to previously but am now hooked. People enjoy a good story. I wonder if past economic events could be used to illustrate your economic thinking. For example, could the 2007 financial crash be a slightly gripping economic story – what happened, protagonists/winners /losers, the political / economic response & consequences, economic lessons learnt / not learnt / unlearnt, etc. 🙂
Noted, and thanks
My favourites of your videos by far are the discussions with John Christensen. They are very informative whilst the ‘banter’ around shared experiences is both entertaining and clear evidence of the depth of experience that gives weight to what you say.
In the guitar-nerd world Rick Beato is very successful. His format is mostly interviews with well known musicians but also other YouTubers who have become popular. The format is clearly popular but how you get that off the ground is beyond me.
I am subscribed to your YouTube channel, and your videos are popping up in my feed. Dancing to the tune of the algorithms must be frustrating. I do not know the answer.
Currently I am trying to respond to the green paper consultation on media. The questionnaire is most unsatisfactory, but how do they process written responses?
It seems to me that rather than attempt to regulate to remove hate-provoking content, the authors plan to get algorithms changed to promote channels they approve of. Censorship of a kind. The algorithms are set to grab our attention, providing revenue from ads or from subscriptions. The business model rests on them, and there is little sign of interest in content moderation, which no doubt costs money. It all seems ludicrous, and the ‘easy read’ version I took a look at hoping it might be shorter, so I could take in the structure better, was patronising and misleading – ‘PSM make tv shows in the UK which are good for the country’ it says, reminding us that BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and S4C belong in this category, and reminding people of this later in the text.
Back to the grindstone, and good luck.
Thank you: that is another issue we will face.
Don’t become a slave to the social media platforms
How else am I to meet salary costs?
[…] Cross-posted from Richard Murphy’s blog developing a fairer and sustainable economy […]