As someone who worked in Silicon Valley for 40 years but found her balance every weekend back in rural America, I have long believed that the experts are narcissists and will push anything if they can get rich on it. People the world over have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the sparkle of tech. Finally, the glare is hurting their eyes.
I hope this trend holds. On my YouTube channel, all of my short videos get about 1000-1500 views, while my longer ones rarely achieve more than 30 views. Personally, I think the longer ones are better, but the algorithm pushes the short ones into people's feeds. To even find one of my longer ones you have to search and scroll.
Heard the same thing from someone else on YT- very concerned that he had somehow been dumped from the algorithm as his long forms weren't showing up in feeds. Upped his shorts and things seem to have righted.
I've been posting mostly short videos since those seem to get views, but it hasn't affected views on my longer videos. Meanwhile, I wonder what benefit, if any, I'm getting from views, and if it matters that my videos are being viewed.
The purpose of longer content is to be evergreen. Which means you need some proper SEO, and they sit and churn over time as opposed to something which goes viral. Takes some real skill and time to be able to churn out even occasional virality.
In short: A proper title (something relative to what people who would search would type in to look for what you are trying to get people to watch), proper use of keywords (in title and description), proper tags.
I think monetization only happens if you have a large number of followers, which I don't. I post videos in an attempt to raise awareness about my business.
Consider having your shorter videos reference your longer ones. Our host here mentioned that some videos already do this. Does Youtube let you put in links?
Thank you for the article. I find no joy in short form - the tiktok thing just leaves me cold. The videos popping up on Substack are uniformly disappointing.
My preference for Substack writing is exactly as you describe - I get to experience long form work that fully explores its generative thesis - I really enjoy authors who take the time to explore and develop the full panoply of their ideas.
Your relating the success of longer books is encouraging. I'm eagerly looking forward to the release of Pynchon's latest later this summer. I hope its a corker of a novel that weighs in "portly". What a feast to be savored!
I think this is what book publishers have missed in their headlong rush toward mediocrity. My current novel was turned down by 30 agents and 20 publishers before I realized I actually didn't want to give it to them. I kept getting inane comments like, "People don't read 100,000-word books (350-400 pages). Make it shorter."
The reality is, novels that hit home runs are the ones that engage readers deeply, leave them with something permanent, and help them become who they want to be. Anything else is entertainment.
Of course, this puts a huge burden on authors, who have to say something good, different, and compelling. It makes the work of publishing more like a labor of love and less like a factory operation.
Some of those agents are out of touch. There were a number of authors cranking out massive novels in the 1980s like Follett and Clavell. One reviewer joked that they were so long that you could just lie on the beach and read all summer and not need to fish out a new novel.
And before that, Michener, and (not an endorsement!) Margaret Mitchell. Also Charles Dickens. (While I realize that his novels were published in serial form, the amount of padding in, say, Nicholws Nickleby and Martin Chuzzlewit is completely OTT.)
As far as I can tell (from bookstore some years ago), people love doorstopper novels, whether trash or treasure. A lot of shlocky writing - Valley of the Dolls, most everything Harold Robbins published = huge books. Stephen King has pushed the limits per doorstopers throughout his career. Once Herman Wouk decided to tackle WWII in its entirety, he ran well over 1k pages in each book (The Winds of War, War and Remembrance).
All agreed and grateful for your take. Regarding artists' work getting longer (such as Taylor Swift's songs) I wonder whether it isn't compensatory to the insanely loud culture we live in -- as though artists feel the need to say more to overcome all the "noise, noise, noise."
How long did Careful With That Axe, Eugene run? How long does it take to listen to a symphony? Swift isn't the first musician to experiment with long form.
The viral enthusiasm for "Middlemarch" this past Spring among NY professionals is another example (albeit anecdotal). I know attendance figures were flat this year - but I keep seeing younger audiences at the Met Opera and at Film Forum. There's a clear hunger for longer, more complicated works that feel "real" as opposed to the slop
You're right about the Middlemarch phenomenon. Against all odds, a 800-page book from 1872 becomes trendy. I've noticed this myself. I should have mentioned it in this article.
Food for thought, immensely useful, thanks so much. I also wanted to note that it's rare to see a good Bleak House reference! And mixing that in as a way to invisbly bolster your point about long-form is a pro move.
Every 3 years I go the the Catholic Cathedral for All Soul's Mass with the Mozart Requiem - sort of a full blown long form of the piece. It is well worthwhile - the intended and proper setting.
As a general rule I do not do short form content at all - and I don't watch or listen to talking heads. It wastes my time.
One of my teens regularly watches tiktok, but she's also reading The Iliad because she likes big, meaty books that she can dive into for a few weeks. The kids are okay.
Bravo and well said, Ted. I wrote about this recently in a piece entitled Nobody Knows Anything: "Expertise is a fickle, funny thing. It’s a lot like integrity: claimed by many though possessed by few.
Purveyors of this rarefied thing—those who deem themselves “experts”—resemble emperors in that they come in all shapes and sizes and seldom wear clothes.
These men and women pride themselves on their ability to peer around the corners of their fields, to picture the future coming into shape before it materializes for the rest of the world. And yet, they seldom see past the end of their respective noses.
Faux experts are like devils: The greatest trick they ever pulled was to convince the world they didn't exist.
Real experts are like Bigfoot: they are exceptionally hard to find (if they even exist at all).
If recent events are any indication (e.g. COVID, the politically correct industrial complex, social media’s summary execution of capital-t Truth, et al), faux experts are sadly a lot more prevalent than real ones."
As someone who worked in Silicon Valley for 40 years but found her balance every weekend back in rural America, I have long believed that the experts are narcissists and will push anything if they can get rich on it. People the world over have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the sparkle of tech. Finally, the glare is hurting their eyes.
The love of money...
I hope this trend holds. On my YouTube channel, all of my short videos get about 1000-1500 views, while my longer ones rarely achieve more than 30 views. Personally, I think the longer ones are better, but the algorithm pushes the short ones into people's feeds. To even find one of my longer ones you have to search and scroll.
Heard the same thing from someone else on YT- very concerned that he had somehow been dumped from the algorithm as his long forms weren't showing up in feeds. Upped his shorts and things seem to have righted.
I've been posting mostly short videos since those seem to get views, but it hasn't affected views on my longer videos. Meanwhile, I wonder what benefit, if any, I'm getting from views, and if it matters that my videos are being viewed.
The purpose of longer content is to be evergreen. Which means you need some proper SEO, and they sit and churn over time as opposed to something which goes viral. Takes some real skill and time to be able to churn out even occasional virality.
What constitutes proper SEO for a YouTube video?
In short: A proper title (something relative to what people who would search would type in to look for what you are trying to get people to watch), proper use of keywords (in title and description), proper tags.
In your opinion, how well, or badly, is the SEO on this?
https://youtu.be/4xybi_VWquY
I don't post on YT, so I can only guess that it's a part of monetization, eg. a minimum of x views before the video generates revenue.
I think monetization only happens if you have a large number of followers, which I don't. I post videos in an attempt to raise awareness about my business.
>Meanwhile, I wonder what benefit, if any, I'm getting from views, and if it matters that my videos are being viewed.
Well, for creators depending on YouTube ad money (or sponsors for their videos) that answer is quite clear, no?
Consider having your shorter videos reference your longer ones. Our host here mentioned that some videos already do this. Does Youtube let you put in links?
Thank you for the article. I find no joy in short form - the tiktok thing just leaves me cold. The videos popping up on Substack are uniformly disappointing.
My preference for Substack writing is exactly as you describe - I get to experience long form work that fully explores its generative thesis - I really enjoy authors who take the time to explore and develop the full panoply of their ideas.
Your relating the success of longer books is encouraging. I'm eagerly looking forward to the release of Pynchon's latest later this summer. I hope its a corker of a novel that weighs in "portly". What a feast to be savored!
I’ll add that the comments on Substack, the longer ones, tend to complement the long-form content. Curse me for using that word!
If that's a cheeky check to my pedantry - well played Sir! ;)
I suspect we are Brothers in Pedantry! I hardly ever pay any attention to videos. They annoy me intensely.
I think this is what book publishers have missed in their headlong rush toward mediocrity. My current novel was turned down by 30 agents and 20 publishers before I realized I actually didn't want to give it to them. I kept getting inane comments like, "People don't read 100,000-word books (350-400 pages). Make it shorter."
The reality is, novels that hit home runs are the ones that engage readers deeply, leave them with something permanent, and help them become who they want to be. Anything else is entertainment.
Of course, this puts a huge burden on authors, who have to say something good, different, and compelling. It makes the work of publishing more like a labor of love and less like a factory operation.
Some of those agents are out of touch. There were a number of authors cranking out massive novels in the 1980s like Follett and Clavell. One reviewer joked that they were so long that you could just lie on the beach and read all summer and not need to fish out a new novel.
And before that, Michener, and (not an endorsement!) Margaret Mitchell. Also Charles Dickens. (While I realize that his novels were published in serial form, the amount of padding in, say, Nicholws Nickleby and Martin Chuzzlewit is completely OTT.)
As far as I can tell (from bookstore some years ago), people love doorstopper novels, whether trash or treasure. A lot of shlocky writing - Valley of the Dolls, most everything Harold Robbins published = huge books. Stephen King has pushed the limits per doorstopers throughout his career. Once Herman Wouk decided to tackle WWII in its entirety, he ran well over 1k pages in each book (The Winds of War, War and Remembrance).
Maybe the relationship looks something like:
Short videos = shallow fans
Long videos = deep fans
Earning fans who are willing to commit to a lot of time to you is worth it. You just have to make their time spent worth their while.
Equally, creating longer form is evidence of the creator’s commitment of time to the audience.
All agreed and grateful for your take. Regarding artists' work getting longer (such as Taylor Swift's songs) I wonder whether it isn't compensatory to the insanely loud culture we live in -- as though artists feel the need to say more to overcome all the "noise, noise, noise."
How long did Careful With That Axe, Eugene run? How long does it take to listen to a symphony? Swift isn't the first musician to experiment with long form.
First hopeful signs of life emerging after the forest fire consumed everything
Oh dont worry, theyll add "the rub" when a critical mass is met.
Im ready for a Dance to the Music of Time group read!
The viral enthusiasm for "Middlemarch" this past Spring among NY professionals is another example (albeit anecdotal). I know attendance figures were flat this year - but I keep seeing younger audiences at the Met Opera and at Film Forum. There's a clear hunger for longer, more complicated works that feel "real" as opposed to the slop
You're right about the Middlemarch phenomenon. Against all odds, a 800-page book from 1872 becomes trendy. I've noticed this myself. I should have mentioned it in this article.
There was endurance theater with the Mahabharata and NIcholas Nickleby back in the 70s and 80s.
You'd think binge watching whole seasons of television would provide a clue that people like long form.
Food for thought, immensely useful, thanks so much. I also wanted to note that it's rare to see a good Bleak House reference! And mixing that in as a way to invisbly bolster your point about long-form is a pro move.
Awesome! As Palantir substitutes reality, humans plant gardens that sustain.
Thank you for this. As someone who has despised short form content since it appeared, this is a welcomed reversal.
Every 3 years I go the the Catholic Cathedral for All Soul's Mass with the Mozart Requiem - sort of a full blown long form of the piece. It is well worthwhile - the intended and proper setting.
As a general rule I do not do short form content at all - and I don't watch or listen to talking heads. It wastes my time.
One of my teens regularly watches tiktok, but she's also reading The Iliad because she likes big, meaty books that she can dive into for a few weeks. The kids are okay.
Bravo and well said, Ted. I wrote about this recently in a piece entitled Nobody Knows Anything: "Expertise is a fickle, funny thing. It’s a lot like integrity: claimed by many though possessed by few.
Purveyors of this rarefied thing—those who deem themselves “experts”—resemble emperors in that they come in all shapes and sizes and seldom wear clothes.
These men and women pride themselves on their ability to peer around the corners of their fields, to picture the future coming into shape before it materializes for the rest of the world. And yet, they seldom see past the end of their respective noses.
Faux experts are like devils: The greatest trick they ever pulled was to convince the world they didn't exist.
Real experts are like Bigfoot: they are exceptionally hard to find (if they even exist at all).
If recent events are any indication (e.g. COVID, the politically correct industrial complex, social media’s summary execution of capital-t Truth, et al), faux experts are sadly a lot more prevalent than real ones."
More: https://www.whitenoise.email/p/nobody-knows-anything
The long and short of it 💎
Touché