EEVBlog Clickbait?

[Dubbie]

For those of us (I had previously weakly included myself in this group) who think a little less of Dave or are otherwise unimpressed with his use of clickbait style thumbnails for his videos, this video may cause you to re-evalute your beliefs.



In a nutshell, Derrick argues that some clickbait can actually be a positive thing.

[ataradov]

As I said in the comment to that video, simply because something increases the spread, does not mean it is ultimately good. Sure, for now you are spreading information to more people, but then you subtly become driven by the need to have even more engagement, and all of a sudden not only cover, but content suffers as well. And soon all you have is react videos. Easy to produce, good engagement, no substance.

There is also a question of quality of those viewers. Your ball dropping from a dam thumbnail will attract typical TikTok viewer, and the part of the video that is interesting to them will get on to TikTok anyway. And most of them are not interested in underlying physical effect. So in a way, you are disappointing a lot of viewers by baiting them into watching content they are not interested in, they just clicked on something that looks like stuff they usually watch.

In that sense, retention is a way better metric than number of views. Did those 2M people watch the whole video?

I personally against clickbait, and make conscious effort to not click on videos like that, which sometimes is hard, but not that impossible.

Also, going to videos from RSS, I'm so happy that I don't see any of the thumbnails.

[Dubbie]

Yes, but maybe that tiktok viewer heard the word “magnus effect” and that is tucked away in his or hers brain for a later time for when it becomes relevant. They might never have encountered it otherwise.

[ataradov]

I've seen it work much better the other way around - you see something that interests you in 15 second TikTok video, and you search for how it works.

I doubt baited people that were looking for TikToks stuck around for 20 minutes to hear about Magnus effect. If there was already reasonable level of interest, people would have clicked on the original video.

I personally way morel likely to click on a video with "effect" in the name than on "Watch what happens when we put thing thing in a hydraulic press". The video may be about some cool piezoelectric effect, but I will never see it, since I purposefully ignore people putting things in a hydraulic press.

May be doing the hybrid thing is better - do an actual video and get the first million of genuinely interested people, then add red circle, an arrow and a a stupid surprised face and get anther 2M of TikTokers.

And again, retention rate is a way better indicator of a correct targeting. That's the issue here. If you believe in educational value, then your goal should be maximizing retention. It can be achieved by using correct names and thumbnails to attract real target audience for your content, or by changing the content to attract a different or wider audience,

If you are optimizing for clicks, then you are doing it for money and everything you say is just to make yourself feel better. There is nothing wrong with making money, just be honest with yourself.

[BrokenYugo]

I never really thought of Dave's titles or thumbnails as particularly click baity. Clickbait, at least to me, is when the title greatly oversells or is outright unrelated to the content, not the case here.

[sleemanj]

I watched half that video last night, not one of Derek's best.

Who is the dude lying in bed, he's sort of introduced as "an expert" but seems like it's somebody we are supposed to recognise?

[ataradov]

Who is the dude lying in bed, he's sort of introduced as "an expert" but seems like it's somebody we are supposed to recognise?

This is MrBeast (Jimmy Donaldson). The master of clickbait, but apparently using it for good, so is not a total jerk. I would trust his opinion on attracting huge masses, but nothing he does is particularly educational. It is pure entertainment.

I'm still not entirely sure how his whole thing works, since it looks a lot like a scam, but apparently is not. But I have not made a lot of effort to research either.

And yes, the video is not the best. It is clearly just made to justify the clickbait, as it needs justification. Just be honest, "I want money" is a perfectly good excuse and there is nothing wrong with it.

[Andrew McNamara]

I have to say, I subconsciously tune out when I see shouty titles. I've inadvertently missed a number of good videos by both Dave and Veritasium due to my mental clickbait filter. My brain just equates "shouty" with "low quality".   

[Dubbie]

There is a big difference between misleading or fraudulent clickbait, which doesn't deliver on the promise of the thumbnail, and the type of clickbait that encourages you to click on a video you wouldn't otherwise click on, and are NOT disappointed after viewing it.

Dave and Veritassiums videos are definitely the latter.

[ataradov]

Dave and Veritassiums videos are definitely the latter.

Not for people that got baited into watching educational video when they were looking for TikToks. Just because it works for you, does not mean it works for everyone.

Retention graphs would show if all those attracted clicks were actually of interest to 2M new people.

[wilfred]

I thought Veritasium's video on clickbait was quite well presented. I found it compelling and convincing. I also consider myself in the "I will avoid clickbait thumbnail videos if I think the payoff for watching is probably low" camp.

Take "EEVblog #1121 - Fontus goes BANKRUPT!" that title and the accompanying thumbnail is undeniably designed as clickbait. And I didn't watch the video. But it also lacked the curiosity gap factor since it told me all that I would want to know. Fontus went tits up. It was the image of Dave facepalming in the thumbnail that told me I would be in for 20 minutes of Dave's sneering tone as well to get there. I definitely don't need that.

So, for me,  perhaps it isn't clickbait after all, but it was designed to entice viewers. I tend to think thumbnail clickbait bottom scrapping is best left to channels aimed at more broadly general audiences. Niche channels, I don't see a benefit. Would Fran Blanche or The Signal Path achieve much from clickbait since they capture  fairly narrow audiences?

Big Clive apparently got a swag of views for his re-distilling of various products even though it was a pisstake for his brother's benefit. They had thumbnails  higher on the clickbait scale than usual.

But as Derek from Veritasium suggested, it is an arms race and it works, so get used to it. It is just another example of Darwinism. Channels that adapt to such a framework will likely succeed. I hope it wasn't so but that isn't going to change it. 

I also thought the explanation of Youtube reducing reliance on subscriptions as a driver of views interesting. It mirrors my experience as I have largely stopped viewing all videos from channels I subscribe to. Perhaps for some channels that is a function of them changing content to meet the new environment. But one thing I am sure of is that channels that overtly produce content simply to meet the changes tend to fall away from my field of view. The question is will they pick up more than they lose. In the case of Veritasium the answer appears obvious.

[wilfred]

Dave and Veritassiums videos are definitely the latter.

Veritasium is a constant and even though the subjects change the purpose does not. It is simply to educate.

EEVblog has split into old school teardowns and product review, and debunking and sneering at others and I doubt the two audience segments overlap to a significant degree. So in that context each cohort would look further down on clickbait thumbnails for the other side. Speaking for myself at least I don't watch the debunking stuff regardless of the thumbnail. So looking upon the thumbnails with greater disdain is of no cost to me. I'll watch something else. But even so it rarely would be a random new channel purely as a consequence of a compelling thumbnail.

A point I made in a previous post on this topic about the clickbait being a form of Darwinism will maybe play out in the EEVblog sphere. I've noticed the Mailbag segment which was once tagged "everyones favourite segment" gets very little love these days. So it remains to be seen what direction EEVblog content will go in.

But I'm also aware I do not represent the average EEVblog viewer so who knows. I do know I haven't watched the Argon Laser teardown yet. What contribution the silly thumbnail made to that choice it still uncertain.

[ataradov]

But as Derek from Veritasium suggested, it is an arms race and it works, so get used to it. It is just another example of Darwinism.

Yes, but then assuming that content won't change is also stupid.

Even in case of Fran, the first UFO video generated a lot of views, even though arguably is a total offtopic. So a few more videos were produced on the topic to capitalize on that. I purposefully skipped those videos (mostly because I don't care about UFOs, but I also don't want to support that behaviour).

It mirrors my experience as I have largely stopped viewing all videos from channels I subscribe to.

Yep, I recently went and unsubbed from all the channels that I skipped every video for the past few months. For some of them, my interests definitely changed, so no fault on their part. But for a lot, the content changed.

The question is will they pick up more than they lose. In the case of Veritasium the answer appears obvious.

Sure, the channels are likely to keep growing. But the content will not be the same, and Derek's content will also change. And the practice shows that educational channels switch into pure entertainment, since it is way easier.

[wilfred]

I think it is inevitable the content will also change. The number of content creators who are feeling the pressure to keep their channels momentum going and are asking for feedback on what sort of content the viewer wants is evidence of that. Some may be seeking some sort of "engagement" to feed the algorithm in the process, but some are setting sail to catch the prevailing winds.

I agree with you regarding Fran's UFO series. I pretty much reacted the same way for the same reason. But I don't hold it against her. She puts some effort into producing quality content and I respect her for it. Some of it will be of enduring interest.

The real downside of the YT changes is that it will lead to a slide in "quality" content. The quotes are air-quotes referencing my own standards of quality.

People who remember magazines, and in Australia I might cite various women's magazines as examples. Decades ago they were largely a source of information and had articles targeted to the interests of past generation of women such as sewing, knitting patterns, cooking recipes, health (actual medical health not "wellness health") and so on. lately those that still exist rely on pulp gossip fodder and highly deceptive clickbait covers to entice women standing at a supermarket checkout to purchase. I expect subscriptions are approaching zero for most of them.

Womens interests changed and what transpired since parallels the YT experience with viral videos of little consequence rising to prominence as YT competes for attention with other social networks like TikTok and FB et al.

Even with Electronics magazines in Australia we saw something similar. Dave covered it in the past. A long standing and respected magazine Electronics Australia after 75 years tried a change around 2000 to become less devoted to the traditional reader who wanted projects and technical articles. To be fair the traditional readership was in a long term decline. I can't recall if the changes were forced on them following an ownership change. They tried to latch onto the consumer electronics and reviews trend at the time to stem the declines in traditional readership. It was a dismal failure and long term subscribers (myself included) unsubscribed in droves and they went belly up in short order.

Electronics Australia changed it's name every few decades to remain relevant to new readers but nowadays the changes roll around so much faster. I don't even think I've been to a newsagent to buy a magazine for 10 years.

I too unsub from time to time to maintain the list of subscriptions. Some subs I maintain because the channel produces infrequent content and some are new subs for channels I watch mostly because Covid lockdowns drive more escapist viewing. I have a fairly detailed understanding of building buggy and coach wheels now (EngelsCoachShop) . I am better informed on how to fell a tree (buckin' billy ray). and various others I might be too embarrassed to mention. I think I could rescue a truck from decades in the woods now. Probably not. I even watch some redneck from Pott County Oklahoma (Puddin's Fab Shop).

It must be really difficult for creators. The world around them changes so fast. And fickle viewers don't help.