Dissatisfied With the Content Creation Status Quo
I recently watched a video on Patreon by someone who I actively support as a “content creator” and whose work I enjoy. I shall provide no more detail regarding their identity because they may not want their work referenced with regard to what I am going to say. During the course of their video they briefly referenced the work put into promoting a podcast they are currently producing and the relatively low audience that it has garnered so far. The comments were an aside and most certainly not said with any sense of self-pity. They were simply a statement of fact. Furthermore, I suspect they are far from unique and similar sentiments have been expressed in one way or another by anyone who has created something the published it online, only for it to be lost among the greater white noise” of the wider internet.
I was going to start this post by noting that it probably won’t be well received. Measured and considered criticism seldom finds an audience and the go to riposte to such writing is “you’re just whining” and other knee-jerk, stock remarks. However, upon mature reflection and sober deliberation, I came to the conclusion that it really doesn’t matter if this doesn’t go down especially well, because so few people will read this. Something that is integral to the points I shall try to convey.
I recently watched a video on Patreon by someone who I actively support as a “content creator” and whose work I enjoy. I shall provide no more detail regarding their identity because they may not want their work referenced with regard to what I am going to say. During the course of their video they briefly referenced the work put into promoting a podcast they are currently producing and the relatively low audience that it has garnered so far. The comments were an aside and most certainly not said with any sense of self-pity. They were simply a statement of fact. Furthermore, I suspect they are far from unique and similar sentiments have been expressed in one way or another by anyone who has created something the published it online, only for it to be lost among the greater white noise” of the wider internet.
I’ve been blogging since 2007 and over the years have become part of an ad-hoc community that has come together and grown through various vicarious means. It used to be predominantly about blogging about video games but through a series of year events designed to promote writing online, it has now become much broader in scope. We’re now a community of variety bloggers and niche fandom writers. There are some very good writers among us, as well as those who have engaging personalities. A decade or so ago, consistently writing in specific areas of fandom would yield results and you could find an audience. Not so much today.
But let’s not just focus on writing online. The point I want to explore is relevant to streamers, podcasters and YouTube channels just as much as bloggers. Simply put there is no meritocracy as I see it, anymore. People whose material deserves a wider audience do not find one. A lot of talent goes unnoticed and unrewarded. Furthermore, to add insult to injury, those writers, podcasters and YouTubers that have nothing to offer but “hot takes”, controversy and entry level oafish buffoonery gain an audience and often financially benefit from their material.
Now some will argue that this is simply the way of the free market and if more cerebral material doesn’t “sell” then simply start churning out what does. IE clickbait. Others will argue that anything vaguely ethical, thought provoking or that is based in facts and data is out of vogue. Both prospects are utterly demoralising. If I honestly thought that we now live in a world where the idiots have definitively won, then I would bother getting up in the morning. However, I do not believe that to be the case. Because I still regularly meet and interact with people who like and enjoy good material and who eschew the tabloid clickbait that is ubiquitous online these days. Which begs the question, why are things like they are?
The answer lies with the big corporations that own all the major platforms for sharing content online. I think most of us have determined that the major algorithms used by these platforms are skewed towards specific types of content. Multiple studies have found that the algorithms prioritise engagement metrics (clicks, comments and watch time) for “controversial” content. Such content is served by default to new accounts, regardless of the viewer preferences. I recently created a new Facebook account to keep in touch with some friends in the US. My profile contained the bare minimum of data about myself and my preferences. Yet I was immediately served “recommended videos” by political parties, news stations and influencers that I abhor and revile. At present the business model for most social media platforms gives a structural advantage to content that is provocative, controversial, or emotionally charged. In my experience, such material is seldom intellectually rigorous, honest and most importantly of all, entertaining.
It is important to be able to correctly audit your own feelings and state of mind. When I think about the fact that so many good bloggers, YouTubers and streamers are simply falling between the cracks and getting overlooked, I don’t get angry. Nor am I especially jealous of those who find success with little talent. Such revenue stream are vicarious. My main feeling is one of dissatisfaction. Because the status quo serves no one but the social media platforms. Yes, there is good content out there but it is becoming increasingly difficult to find. Furthermore, the process of attrition, a factor that all content creators face, is accelerated when one people feel that they’re making no progress. Hence the status quo actively contributes to good, creative individuals quitting the scene.
So, there you have it. I’m dissatisfied. Am I going stop blogging? Not at the moment. I don’t feel disposed to be driven off the internet, be it indirectly, by the fact that there’s a lot of shit out there that drowns out everything else. However, my present mindset does have an impact on my writing schedule. But I take comfort in the fact that it is likely that I am not the only one who feels this way and that others are not happy with either current “market forces” or the existing business model. Surely racing to the bottom and continuously serving clickbait has a finite lifespan? Will there be a reset of some kind when the public finally tire of such material? May be. But not at present. Which brings an old adage to mind. What can’t be cured, must be endured. But not necessarily with good grace. If the status quo pisses you off, say so.
Standardise and Monetise: The Decline of Online Content
I use a browser extension called Control Panel for YouTube, which allows me to determine who many videos are displayed on my YouTube homepage and to filter the content that is shown. At present it is configured to display rows of six. Something that I have noticed of late, is the amount of videos with hyperbolic titles and thumbnail images created by AI. Both of which are design choices made to increase engagement. Clickbait titles are contrived to meet current SEO optimisation criteria and as such feature more and more in search results. The fact that they frequently have no relation to the subject I am researching, seems to be neither here nor there. The same issues arise with regard to AI generated images, which again frequently have no bearing on the matter. The fact that more and more content creators do this, infers that it works and is now an essential part of the process you must follow to be seen and featured in search results.
I use a browser extension called Control Panel for YouTube, which allows me to determine who many videos are displayed on my YouTube homepage and to filter the content that is shown. At present it is configured to display rows of six. Something that I have noticed of late, is the amount of videos with hyperbolic titles and thumbnail images created by AI. Both of which are design choices made to increase engagement. Clickbait titles are contrived to meet current SEO optimisation criteria and as such feature more and more in search results. The fact that they frequently have no relation to the subject I am researching, seems to be neither here nor there. The same issues arise with regard to AI generated images, which again frequently have no bearing on the matter. The fact that more and more content creators do this, infers that it works and is now an essential part of the process you must follow to be seen and featured in search results.
What worries me is not so much the inherent hyperbole, both written and with regard to images, but the fact that YouTube content is driven by a standardised process. A prevailing meta is often creatively stifling, generic and tedious. We have seen this time and time again online. TED Talks being a prime example. When these lectures first began to gain an audience in 2006/7, the talks had a degree of individuality about them. Over time people began to notice what worked and what didn’t work within the format and so began establishing a process. Eventually this evolved into a sort of unofficial formula that became commonly adopted. This resulted in a noticeably generic style that eventually became an impediment to the way a presentation was received by audiences.
Today, the prevailing philosophy that shapes how people approach, make and present their online content seems to be “standardise and monetise”. That is not to say that there isn’t any good quality content online as there certainly is. What it means is when you search for a video, podcast or blog post related to a specific subject, it is harder to discern what meets your criteria. The algorithms return results that have met SEO standards but not necessarily the users intellectual, or presentation requirements. To put it candidly, you may type a very nuanced search request in a search engine pertaining to something niche and specific, such as Etruscan pottery. The search engine then returns a list of links allegedly relevant to that inquiry. However upon inspection you may find that links to relevant sites, such as Museums in Etruria and other historical resources, are surrounded by irrelevant results, such as local pottery suppliers and tourism in Italy.
I believe this problem goes beyond the iniquities of SEO. You only have to look at the everchanging terms and conditions for YouTube. The company seeks to monetise content but only in a manner that meets the sociopolitical foibles of its advertisers, financiers and political associates. Any material that does not meet this ever shifting set of rules or offends in some manner is effectively disenfranchised by the algorithmic gods. It won’t be seen or returned in search results. Anyone trying to produce video content within such an ecosystem has a stark choice to make. Produce videos in accordance with their own personal principles and risk being demonetised and buried. Or attempt to self-censor one’s content to satisfy YouTube’s standards. The latter results in risible bogus phrases such as “unalived” and “graped”. The notion of trying to sanitise a global platform as YouTube so that the only content that prevails is “marketable”, is ludicrous and possibly immoral.
Upon reflection, YouTube’s policy should not come as a surprise. Similar market forces have been at work in the film and music industries over the last 35 years. There was a time when a film could be made on the merits of its story alone and its subsequent rating was a secondary consideration. Nowadays, mainstream films are frequently made to achieve a specific rating and thus be accessible to a broad audience. Filmmakers of note with a history of success at the box office struggle to find financing for their new projects, if they are deemed to lack mainstream appeal or reference subjects that are at odds with the politics of the prevailing establishment. It is for the same reason that politics and expressing views on social matters have all but vanished from mainstream, popular music. Both industries are now driven by proven formulas and market requirements. This is to their artistic detriment.
Finally it is pertinent to mention blogs with respect to this conversation. Despite rumours to the contrary, they still exist and constitute a major part of online content. Blogs are still a medium for fandom but I do not think that it is considered the first choice of platform. Long form writing takes time, effort and thought. As does reading such content. Videos are immediate and potentially require less application from the viewer. Video content can also be tailor made in a specific idiom and then targeted at particular audiences. Hot takes, controversies, militant fandom, gatekeeping, nostalgia and numerous other “perspectives” can quickly find an audience and gain their creator notoriety. Blogging seems at times quaint compared to such a bellicose alternative. It is also often pilloried for not monetising by default, as if fandom for fandom’s sake is a naive or a fiscally crass decision.
Despite all this, there is still good material to be found online. There are engaging and intelligent blogs, podcasts and YouTube channels. Good quality cinema still exists as does innovative music. The problem is that it is much harder to find among all the bland, homogeneous and spurious material, due to a fundamentally dishonest search methodology. The market may well have won according to some but in doing so it has led to a universal race to the bottom. It is not just a question of inferior content being spoon-fed to the credulous. The internet is partly responsible for creating an audience that cannot consume any other form of material. This is the price we pay for clickbait, dumbed down content, diminished concentration spans, educational decline and an inability to think critically. This is the reality of “standardise and monetise”.
Experimenting With YouTube Part 1
I recently wrote a post about how I wanted to have a go at producing some gaming videos for YouTube. “How hard can it be?” I asked rhetorically, knowing that there would probably be a lot more to the process than meets the eye. Two weeks on and I can report back that there is indeed a learning curve but it is not insurmountable. I managed to figure out how to record a video game, edit it and then add a narration as well as a simple animated logo. Furthermore, I succeeded in doing this without spending a lot of money. I bought some video editing software and a year’s subscription to XSplit Broadcaster but got a really good deal on both. In total I paid £41, which is very reasonable. Hence yesterday, I posted my first video on the officially relaunched Contains Moderate Peril YouTube channel.
I recently wrote a post about how I wanted to have a go at producing some gaming videos for YouTube. “How hard can it be?” I asked rhetorically, knowing that there would probably be a lot more to the process than meets the eye. Two weeks on and I can report back that there is indeed a learning curve but it is not insurmountable. I managed to figure out how to record a video game, edit it and then add a narration as well as a simple animated logo. Furthermore, I succeeded in doing this without spending a lot of money. I bought some video editing software and a year’s subscription to XSplit Broadcaster but got a really good deal on both. In total I paid £41, which is very reasonable. Hence yesterday, I posted my first video on the officially relaunched Contains Moderate Peril YouTube channel.
Like a lot of people, I captured my video game material using OBS Studio. This was easy to configure as there are plenty of YouTube videos on this subject. Deciding what software to use for editing was a little trickier. I didn’t want to use a beast such as DaVinci Resolve as it smacks of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Eventually I read a comparison review over at TechRadar and Corel VideoStudio 2023 seemed to fit the scope of my project. It has proved easy to learn and is well supported. All went well to begin with. I edited an 18 minute video down to 8. However, when I started adding more material, I noticed that the sound started getting out of sync, leading to a crash course in the iniquities of video content recorded with a variable frame rate. Remuxing offered a solution but added an extra layer of work. So I switched from OBS Studio, to Bandicam (which stuttered) to XSplit Broadcaster.
The thing about making videos for YouTube, is that it’s only half of the work. Uploading the finished MP4 file and having to input all the metadata required for posting, is a complex task. There is an element of “voodoo” associated with choosing a title and a thumbnail image, along with selecting the right keywords and writing a description that will potentially intrigue viewers. If you’re looking to monetise your YouTube channel (which mercifully, I am not) then there is a lot of pressure to get this process right. Like writing online, I can see how easy it is to start obsessing about numbers and traffic. However, YouTube is already an oversubscribed space so it is best to put thoughts of “global domination” out of your mind. I have and I am just pleased that I managed to produce something.
I guess the question remains, am I going to post YouTube videos regularly? Not exactly. I am going to try to do a few more and see if I can learn how to refine my presentation and make the production process more efficient. If that can be done I don’t see why I can’t publish something once a month? But in true blogger style, I reserve the right to get bored and lose interest, or to have unforeseen complexities in my life which prevent me from doing anything online. It has been fun learning something new. I like to challenge myself and think it important to keep the brain ticking over, especially as you get older. This project has also been a timely reminder of how hard some YouTube content creators work. Especially those who clearly do it as a means of income. It is far more labour intensive than blogging.
The Cost of Content Creation
Back in July 2017 I wrote a blog post about how monetising your content fundamentally changes the relationship you have with your audience and how that isn’t always a good thing with regard to maintaining ones creative independence. I then went on to describe how I see both my blog and podcast as personal “indulgences” and that I had no intention of using Patreon or having a virtual tip jar. This remains the case and I’m not looking to my readership for funding of any kind. However, it is spring and for me at least, that means that a lot of yearly costs associated with my content creation are up for renewal. Therefore I thought it an appropriate opportunity to discuss the subject of the cost of blogging, podcasting, streaming and other forms of content creation.
Back in July 2017 I wrote a blog post about how monetising your content fundamentally changes the relationship you have with your audience and how that isn’t always a good thing with regard to maintaining ones creative independence. I then went on to describe how I see both my blog and podcast as personal “indulgences” and that I had no intention of using Patreon or having a virtual tip jar. This remains the case and I’m not looking to my readership for funding of any kind. However, it is spring and for me at least, that means that a lot of yearly costs associated with my content creation are up for renewal. Therefore I thought it an appropriate opportunity to discuss the subject of the cost of blogging, podcasting, streaming and other forms of content creation.
Rather than use a free service such as WordPress, I host Contains Moderate Peril via Squarespace which is a subscription service. The infrastructure is robust, secure and the service has several advantages over others that don’t charge. Squarespace has its own statistical package which affords me more than an overview of my website traffic. My current subscription also allows me to host my podcast, which saves me using another service such as Libsyn. At present I choose to pay monthly, so if my circumstances quickly change (and as a carer they certainly can) I can simply cancel the service. At present, the subscription costs £11.14 per month. I also recently renewed my domain, which I do via Go Daddy. It currently costs £23.38 per year, which is about £1.95 per month.
Although there are free alternatives, I still use Microsoft Office and subscribe to Office 365. Last year I bought year’s subscription for a little over £30 from a third-party key seller. Sadly, I couldn’t find such a deal this time, so I have opted to pay £5.99 per month. This is not the most economical option, but it suits my current needs. I have always been a strong advocate of both Microsoft Word and Outlook and rely heavily on the functionality they provide. I use Word for more than just blogging, having a great deal of administrative work to do. Similarly, I manage multiple email accounts and find that Outlook is by far the best tool for this. Email for Contains Moderate Peril, along with a second domain linked to my former business, are both handled via a hosted Microsoft Exchange service costing £17.86 per month.
Overall, it costs me £36.94 to maintain a blog and produce a monthly podcast. That may not sound like a lot of money, but how you view what is and what isn’t expensive is highly subjective. As a carer on a fixed income I’ve had to think long and hard about such expenditure and I’ve briefly considered cheaper options. However, I do not like to dependent on free services and prefer to have the safety net of customer support and legal recourse that comes with paid third-party vendors. So for the present I shall continue to pay in the manner I’ve described. I’d be interested to hear from fellow bloggers and content creators regarding their expenditure or whether they manage to get by without spending anything. Is there a price limit on your hobby or have you been tempted to look to a service such a Patreon to cover costs?
Blaugust Reborn: Event or Cause?
The Blaugust Reborn is an event, which promotes blogging and offers advice and guidance to those who have just started or who are toying with the idea of doing so. It has no agenda beyond providing encouragement and support. The advice that is offered through various veterans’ content creators collective experience, is just that, advice. It can be taken or ignored, because ultimately blogging is a very personal pastime and there really isn't a right or wrong way to do it. If doing what you do and the way that you do it brings you pleasure, then you've pretty much well nailed it. I see Blaugust Reborn as a benign undertaking. It has no agenda that I am aware of. In fact, I could argue that my involvement is a little self-serving, in so far as I hope that some great new blogs emerge from this year’s event that I can read on a regular basis. Overall, I see the Blaugust Reborn as a simple exercise in offering a helping hand. For me it's not any more complex than that.
The Blaugust Reborn is an event, which promotes blogging and offers advice and guidance to those who have just started or who are toying with the idea of doing so. It has no agenda beyond providing encouragement and support. The advice that is offered through various veterans’ content creators collective experience, is just that, advice. It can be taken or ignored, because ultimately blogging is a very personal pastime and there really isn't a right or wrong way to do it. If doing what you do and the way that you do it brings you pleasure, then you've pretty much well nailed it. I see Blaugust Reborn as a benign undertaking. It has no agenda that I am aware of. In fact, I could argue that my involvement is a little self-serving, in so far as I hope that some great new blogs emerge from this year’s event that I can read on a regular basis. Overall, I see the Blaugust Reborn as a simple exercise in offering a helping hand. For me it's not any more complex than that.
However, may not see it in such straight forward terms. A few years ago, when the equivalent event of Blaugust Reborn was the Newbie Blogger Initiative there was criticism from some quarters of the Blogosphere, who saw the it as an organised attempt to try and stamp some sort of standard identity upon new writers. It was even labelled as some sort of Orwellian Groupthink. There was a great deal of hyperbole involved and very little clear thinking. This view stemmed from the fact that a lot of those at the time participating in the NBI had written about their indifference to GamerGate and thus there was the ubiquitous binary backlash from those who equated ambivalence with holding a contrary view. However, this matter did highlight the fact that something as simple as benign as trying to offer help and support could be misconstrued.
I think what I found curious about the pushback that happened in NBI back in 2015 was the fact that someone saw fit to label the event as a "cause". This has got me thinking whether anyone thinks that Blaugust Reborn is a cause instead of an exercise in self-help? A supportive event is optional and non-threatening. A "cause" is a much more subtle beast. It has socio-political connotations. There is usually an undercurrent of moral rectitude. Causes seek to correct something. Something that is deemed to be currently wrong, hence the ethical undertone. Events simply facilitate, whereas causes will by their very nature have those that are diametrically opposed to them. Suddenly an activity goes from being functional (and fun) to something far more partisan.
Consider something like advice on weight loss and eating healthily. In essence it is a harmless stance to take and advocate. Yet if it is promoted in an overzealous and judgemental way and treated as a cause rather than optional guidance, it suddenly becomes a political football; something that is strongly resisted and reviled in some quarters as a form of social engineering. I don't want the Blaugust Reborn to fall into this trap. I don't want it to become burdened with ideologies and dogma. I want it to be perceived for what it is; an event that offers a helping hand and facilitates the participant to blog in a manner that suits them.
The thing about Blaugust Reborn is that the advice offered can be used in whatever way the author wishes. I could be argued that Blaugust Reborn could even end up facilitating writers who produce hateful content filled with bigotry and prejudice. So far from what I’ve seen of those who have signed up to participate, that seem unlikely but it’s not impossible. However, that goes with the territory and I do not fear those who have contrary views to my own. Blaugust Reborn is just a process. What people choose to do with the information they can obtain from it is their decision. It's a bit like running a woodwork class. If someone wants to use the knowledge they’ve gained to fashion a club instead of a chair, then that is their prerogative (feel free to add your own Bobby Brown gag here).
Now I realise that Blaugust Reborn is not defined by just one person's perception of it. It runs due to the involvement of multiple people, all of which probably have a unique view of exactly what the event is and what it aims to achieve. Yet I think that its inherent simplicity adds to its appeal. Therefore, I have made the assumption that other participants do not see it as a "cause". However, I may be wrong. I've been round the block several times and in my youth been involved in politics, trade union activities and various social issues. Yes, I have supported "causes". Sadly, none of them has been without problems or remained 100% true to their roots and goals. It is just the nature of ideologies and concept, that implementing them often requires compromise. But I don’t see Blaugust Reborn falling into this category though.
Age has taught me to be both mindful and sceptical of such things as "causes". Too often they can be a Trojan Horse for something more sinister. But again, I don’t see Blaugust Reborn being like that. So, I'm asking the following question out of curiosity to all who may be involved with Blaugust Reborn to a greater or lesser degree. How do you perceive this event? Or is it simply an exercise in self-help. Do you see it as part of a wider undertaking with greater meaning? Do you consider it as a cause? If so what do you want the event to achieve beyond helping content creators? Is it an open invite to all, or would you be concerned if someone with a “radical” online presence wished to get involved? It’s certainly food for thought. Feel free to comment.