You’re giving me no relatable subject I could be interested in, nothing pretty to look at and no music. Literally the only hint that lets me expect anything good from this channel is the word “Comedy” in the title. And when you fail to give me a good joke in the first 5 seconds, my expectation for funniness from the rest of the video goes way down. This means no expectation to be entertained is left, so I leave.
Your voice is good though, and the sound quality is fine.
Minor points: You talk too slowly, except in your first video. Your channel banner is repulsive. The visualizations you use are both ugly and getting worse; the newest one is downright painful to look at. (Seriously, an unmoving image would do less harm.)
If you show your face and drop a quick one-liner right at the beginning and talk a bit faster, this might be going places, otherwise I don’t think you have a chance to be talked about for this, let alone make money.
EDIT: Here’s an example video incorporating a few of the ideas you suggested.
Pretty things: A fairly static visualisation, basically a four pointed blue star that very slowly rotates, could be used as a standard replacement for every video. Would you suggest that, a similar option, or one of the following: an image of nature that may not fit the theme of the video, crudely drawn images of one thing that do not change, crudely drawn images of characters that change infrequently if at all?
Music: Do you suggest inserting background music into the audio files? If so, should the music be opposite the tone of the file (e.g. happy-go-lucky music to the Documentary), or match the tone?
Thank you.
What video do you mean by, ‘first’? Father, or Donerly?
Banner: Is this better? Or is the font the main issue? If the latter, what attribute would you recommend in a better font—more rounded letters, blockier letters, more Gothic letters, more elongated letters?
One-liner: This sounds a very good idea. Will it work without showing a face?
Relatable subjects: See the comment to Christian for descriptions of the audio files. Would including those descriptions in the in static image, and/or the description box below, keep you listening?
Apologies for the onslaught of questions; you are in no way obligated to answer any of them, and thank you for the above feedback.
This new example video is much better. If I wasn’t invested in watching it in order to assist you, I would have clicked away from it after about 45 seconds rather than 5, and then mostly because of your pausing speech. (Many YouTube creators cut out every single inbreath, and I suggest you try that.) The music made a surprising amount of positive difference, and I actually like the picture a bit—I hope you have rights to use both?
Of the visualization options you name, I figure a nature image, possibly with a textual description, is the least bad option. But really, not showing your face cuts down your appeal by at least 90%. As long as you don’t do that, your problem isn’t in the marketing, it’s in the product.
I’m not suggesting background music, although it evidently helps. I’m saying that when I watch videos, expecting to hear enjoyable music is frequently my main motivation. And since almost all of the most-viewed videos are music videos, that’s obviously a common motivation. Your video is not adressing that motivation, and background music is unlikely to change that. Nor is it adressing the common motivations for personal connection, interesting or actionable information, or something pretty to look at. You could get at the personal connection bit if you made jokes about (what you claim to be) true stories from your personal life and—did I say that already? - show your face.
To me, your banner looks simply cheap. It signals you’re not committed to making me have a good time. Yes the clouds help a bit, but I’m sure you could do much better.
A one-liner (or better yet, three good jokes in the first 20 seconds to build up expected entertainment value for the rest of the video, and keep me watching) will help even without a face. A face would help more. Compare this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHczVzGfyqQ . The guy isn’t conventionally pretty, and the video is clearly not about visuals, but still, he wouldn’t have gotten over 300K views with a goddamn static visualisation.
And yes, people will make stupid hurtful comments about your face, even if you’re the sexiest person on the planet. Growing to tolerate that is one of the best reasons to make videos.
Descriptions will occasionally make me invest a couple more seconds in a video, i.e. make me give it a couple more opportunities to get me hooked.
Edit: Here’s Father with an animated face and a one-liner in the beginning. Thoughts?
Can’t find rights information for the image, and the music is royalty-free. Will endeavour to minimise the pauses in the future. How much of the difference was due to content, would you say?
If that is the least bad option, then barring showing a face, what would you say is an actually good option?
Face: Attractiveness and confidence are non-issues, but still can’t show a face. The true objection is for reasons of privacy; one of those reasons is a negative impact upon professional life. On the plus side, upon achieving a sizeable audience, that reason no longer applies. At that point, a face may be able to be shown.
Here’s the only other channel with similar content that does not show a face. They keep viewers engaged with animated subtitles that take a month to produce. If you watch Father with subtitles on, is your interest held better?
Will make a new banner. Was going for a homey, casual vibe; still want that vibe, but will make it look more produced.
Something you could do, alternatively, is use software like facerig, assuming you have a webcam. It would work fairly effectively, I think, and is comedic enough in its own right to go along with your show.
That is excellent, thank you. Do you think a mobile PC with an Intel® Core™ 2 Duo @ 2.8GHz and an ATI Mobility Radeon 4650 can handle the minimum specs of Intel® Core™ i3-3220 or equivalent and NVIDIA GeForce GT220 or equivalent?
I’ve no clue myself. My minimal expertise in computer specs is 5 years old; the last time I payed attention to them was when I built my current computer (and even then with parts recommended by a friend). However, I’ve long since delegated figuring out if my computer can run something to Can You Run It. It functions fairly effectively in checking that sort of thing.
You’re giving me no relatable subject I could be interested in, nothing pretty to look at and no music. Literally the only hint that lets me expect anything good from this channel is the word “Comedy” in the title. And when you fail to give me a good joke in the first 5 seconds, my expectation for funniness from the rest of the video goes way down. This means no expectation to be entertained is left, so I leave.
Your voice is good though, and the sound quality is fine.
Minor points: You talk too slowly, except in your first video. Your channel banner is repulsive. The visualizations you use are both ugly and getting worse; the newest one is downright painful to look at. (Seriously, an unmoving image would do less harm.)
If you show your face and drop a quick one-liner right at the beginning and talk a bit faster, this might be going places, otherwise I don’t think you have a chance to be talked about for this, let alone make money.
EDIT: Here’s an example video incorporating a few of the ideas you suggested.
Pretty things: A fairly static visualisation, basically a four pointed blue star that very slowly rotates, could be used as a standard replacement for every video. Would you suggest that, a similar option, or one of the following: an image of nature that may not fit the theme of the video, crudely drawn images of one thing that do not change, crudely drawn images of characters that change infrequently if at all?
Music: Do you suggest inserting background music into the audio files? If so, should the music be opposite the tone of the file (e.g. happy-go-lucky music to the Documentary), or match the tone?
Thank you.
What video do you mean by, ‘first’? Father, or Donerly?
Banner: Is this better? Or is the font the main issue? If the latter, what attribute would you recommend in a better font—more rounded letters, blockier letters, more Gothic letters, more elongated letters?
One-liner: This sounds a very good idea. Will it work without showing a face?
Relatable subjects: See the comment to Christian for descriptions of the audio files. Would including those descriptions in the in static image, and/or the description box below, keep you listening?
Apologies for the onslaught of questions; you are in no way obligated to answer any of them, and thank you for the above feedback.
This new example video is much better. If I wasn’t invested in watching it in order to assist you, I would have clicked away from it after about 45 seconds rather than 5, and then mostly because of your pausing speech. (Many YouTube creators cut out every single inbreath, and I suggest you try that.) The music made a surprising amount of positive difference, and I actually like the picture a bit—I hope you have rights to use both?
Of the visualization options you name, I figure a nature image, possibly with a textual description, is the least bad option. But really, not showing your face cuts down your appeal by at least 90%. As long as you don’t do that, your problem isn’t in the marketing, it’s in the product.
I’m not suggesting background music, although it evidently helps. I’m saying that when I watch videos, expecting to hear enjoyable music is frequently my main motivation. And since almost all of the most-viewed videos are music videos, that’s obviously a common motivation. Your video is not adressing that motivation, and background music is unlikely to change that. Nor is it adressing the common motivations for personal connection, interesting or actionable information, or something pretty to look at. You could get at the personal connection bit if you made jokes about (what you claim to be) true stories from your personal life and—did I say that already? - show your face.
To me, your banner looks simply cheap. It signals you’re not committed to making me have a good time. Yes the clouds help a bit, but I’m sure you could do much better.
A one-liner (or better yet, three good jokes in the first 20 seconds to build up expected entertainment value for the rest of the video, and keep me watching) will help even without a face. A face would help more. Compare this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHczVzGfyqQ . The guy isn’t conventionally pretty, and the video is clearly not about visuals, but still, he wouldn’t have gotten over 300K views with a goddamn static visualisation.
And yes, people will make stupid hurtful comments about your face, even if you’re the sexiest person on the planet. Growing to tolerate that is one of the best reasons to make videos.
Descriptions will occasionally make me invest a couple more seconds in a video, i.e. make me give it a couple more opportunities to get me hooked.
Edit: Here’s Father with an animated face and a one-liner in the beginning. Thoughts?
Can’t find rights information for the image, and the music is royalty-free. Will endeavour to minimise the pauses in the future. How much of the difference was due to content, would you say?
If that is the least bad option, then barring showing a face, what would you say is an actually good option?
Face: Attractiveness and confidence are non-issues, but still can’t show a face. The true objection is for reasons of privacy; one of those reasons is a negative impact upon professional life. On the plus side, upon achieving a sizeable audience, that reason no longer applies. At that point, a face may be able to be shown.
Here’s the only other channel with similar content that does not show a face. They keep viewers engaged with animated subtitles that take a month to produce. If you watch Father with subtitles on, is your interest held better?
Will make a new banner. Was going for a homey, casual vibe; still want that vibe, but will make it look more produced.
How about this as a slate / one-liner example?
Something you could do, alternatively, is use software like facerig, assuming you have a webcam. It would work fairly effectively, I think, and is comedic enough in its own right to go along with your show.
Here’s a test using Facerig. What do you think?
That is excellent, thank you. Do you think a mobile PC with an Intel® Core™ 2 Duo @ 2.8GHz and an ATI Mobility Radeon 4650 can handle the minimum specs of Intel® Core™ i3-3220 or equivalent and NVIDIA GeForce GT220 or equivalent?
I’ve no clue myself. My minimal expertise in computer specs is 5 years old; the last time I payed attention to them was when I built my current computer (and even then with parts recommended by a friend). However, I’ve long since delegated figuring out if my computer can run something to Can You Run It. It functions fairly effectively in checking that sort of thing.
Ah, many thanks. Breaks down the relevant performance components of the graphics card; worth the attempt, at the very least.