Tag Archives: subscribers

Why YouTube Subscribers Don’t Matter

In general, YouTube creators (and viewers) are a bit obsessed with sheer numbers of subscribers. It’s fool’s gold, friends. While early views are often predicated on developing a subscriber base, as a creator’s presence on YouTube matures, subscribers simply don’t matter nearly as much as people think. What matters is quality not quantity. I’d trade you half of my 250K subscribers for 1000 actively engaged viewers.

I say that to offset the prevailing belief that subscribers are everything, but recognize it’s a provocative overstament. A solid base of “fans” or avid viewers is invaluable. But after a while, the “subscription obsession” can be lazy and dangerous. Here’s why:

  • There was a time where we thought most subscribers viewed videos, and in fact that was more true in 2008-2009. Today (with the exception of a dozen top channels), the majority of views by the top 500 YouTubers are driven by “related videos” and micro-featuring (spotlighted videos). Almost 80-90 percent of my daily views (ranging about 200-250,000 daily) are not from subscribers, and “search” drives only about 1 percent. Obviously a healthy subscriber base (especially those who interact with the video) has a cascading effect on related videos and microfeaturing. But…
  • One loyal/active subscriber is worth more than 50 passive ones. Since only about 1 percent of viewers tend to interact with a video (and the creator’s relationship with his/her audience has a lot to do with that), the active viewer is GOLD. The passive troll (or dead account) is fool’s gold.
  • Let me put this in simple terms. Of the quarter of a million views I get, perhaps ONE PERCENT of those are driven by subscribers deciding to check my latest video. That fact initially demotivated me and I shared that with YouTube staffers: why kill myself making new videos if it barely makes a difference to daily views, which sets my income? Lately, however, it makes me highly motivated to create more regular and better videos to maintain and grow a recurring audience. Sure- I feel fortunate that I have some momentum from the thousands of hours and thousands of videos I’ve created since 2004, but also very nervous about losing that momentum because of a simple shift in YouTube’s “programming” or algorithm.
  • All subscribers are not created equally. Those who subscribe to my channel via “box-for-box” are often inadvertent viewers prone to leaving hate comments. As time goes on, you invariably increase the percentage of total subscribers who are not fans… they may find one video they like, subscribe, then complain or bail.
  • I define the “health” of a YouTube channel as the recurring views that recent videos get. So while I’m happy to be getting millions of views a month, they are radically tilted toward old videos. My new videos get seen, with some exception, about 20K times… which is just 10% of my total subscribers (250K I think, but I’ve stopped checking).
  • Even when I was about 100K subscribers and getting about 40-100K views per video, that was deceptive. First, a lot of those views came not from subscription but from the 10K plus people that would check my channel daily to see what’s new (that’s dropped). Also my recent videos were automatically adjacent to my legacy videos, which changed a few years ago. So what I saw as subscriber views were often driven by the dozen enduring videos (Scary Maze, Farting in Public). Now the videos that surround those are unlikely to be mine, thus the “binger” is less likely to get caught in a Nalts binge.
Being on the popular "BarelyPolitical" channel "additional channels" box drove #s but could have invited an audience that's a poor fit
  • Finally, I suspect that the increase in “trolls” on my Nalts channel may partially be the result of the kindness of BarelyPolitical to “box” me on its channel (this morning, I respectfully invited them to remove me from their “related channel” box). It drove high numbers of subscribers, but mostly people unfamiliar with me. For instance, my daughter posted a video last night (embarrassing brothers) and it fetched about 80 comments before day break… about 10 of them I needed to delete before she saw them. I expected the “get back to prank” comments, but the 10 were lude and clearly not people you want subbed.  The video, which is consistant with what I’ve been making for 5 years, is simply not going to please a typical BarelyPolitical subscriber. The trolls come from a variety of sources, but when I see people refer to me as a third person I generally assume they didn’t subscribe with any premeditation.

    So why is this important? It means independent creators are highly dependent on YouTube’s “programming,” which is currently an algorithm. If tomorrow YouTube made a change, my mature channel would evaporate instantly. These rules apply to all channels, but especially to those that have already built some momentum and wish to build on it…

    The New Rules…

     

    1. Stop checking subscription numbers and focus on the quality of your relationship with fervent fans.
    2. Produce regular videos. I used to post daily, and when I stopped (on advice of many that said they’d prefer a good video weekly than decent videos daily) I lost a lot of momentum. Frequency is as important as quality. We are creatures of habit, and we’ll push that peddle over and over as long as a food pellet comes out (or to use gambling terms, we’ll keep playing the slots as long as we occasionally get a prize). But after a while, people stop checking your channel for new content. A month or two of zero or poor content can produce enduring damage… people simply forget to check your channel.
    3. Produce what Ryan Nugent at YouTube calls “Temporal Programming.” Produce content about current events, and plan content around major events… Shark Week is a nice example, and so are videos posted days before a big event (post your 4th of July video on July first so it builds steam).
    4. Third, BYOA. Bring your own audience. Annoying Orange drives a large chunk of his views from a very popular Facebook page. I’ve not had as much luck driving traffic via other mediums, but “seeding” is another way to garner views. Produce content that a popular blogger may enjoy and let him/her know about it. Look for other ways to syndicate your YouTube content beyond YouTube.
    5. Reconsider your “ask.” Should you ask for comments/ratings/favorites? Sure. That’s what makes a video jump on YouTube’s “most viewed” charts. But also consider other “asks” of your audience… subscribe via e-mail, check every Friday, etc.

    The Onion used to publish online on Wednesdays, and I still wake up on Wednesdays and reflexively check (even though content is now regularly updated).

    The bottom line is that audience development is about building yourself into the habit/routine of an active audience, not by getting a quantity of lukewarm viewers via a magical orange button.

    How To Get YouTube Views and Subscribers Without Getting Scammed

    How can I get YouTube views and subscribers without getting scammed? Here’s a video that discourages the use of bots, cheats and ridiculous purchase of views and subscribers (on eBay and other services found on Google searches).

    There’s no “magic bullet” or proven way to get views and subscribers overnight (although that can happen with particularly viral videos). Instead, try a) optimism and persistence, b) collaborating and being social (interacting) with viewers and people who already have an audience (give them a reason to “shout you out” or embed your video, don’t beg or pay), and c) learn… links in the video description to my free eBook (How To Get Popular on YouTube Without Any Talent) and book (Beyond Viral).

    The Secret to YouTube Views and Subscribers: Poop Frequency

    Save yourself a lot of time, and ditch my eBook about how to get popular on YouTube. There’s one common denominator to getting regular YouTube views and subscribers. It’s a secret possessed by the regular names we see on YouTube’s most-popular videos of the day. People who retain wildly enthusiastic fans who watch, rate, favorite and forward videos. I once did it (more for my own discipline) and didn’t realize how vital it is.

    Frequency. Routine. Post daily. Like you brush your teeth, exercise or poop.

    It’s a simple thing, really. When my tagline was “Nalts makes a video everytime you poop,” each of my new videos was seen at least 40-50,000 times. Now I’m intermittent and people simply forget to look.

    Sure you could argue that there are other factors. Not everyone that posts daily has views, and not everyone that gets loads of views posts daily. But it’s the single biggest common denominator, and therefore I proclaim it a “best practice.”

    Take a look at the people that dominate the “most highly rated,” and tell me something they else have in common besides mostly vlogging and not sketch. They are (in no particular order): Shaytards (aka Shaytard), CTFxC (CharlesTrippy), SxePhil (Phillip DeFranco), WhatTheBuckShow (Michael Buckley), KassemG, Livealivalive, ShaneDawsonTV (and various other channels), CommunityChannel, FailBlog, MichelleFan, and a few more. I’m not hyperlinking their name, because you can find them all here sooner or later (most popular videos of the week on YouTube). There are videos that get more views, but these are the individuals that command a vivid audience.

    It makes sense. It’s still a social media, and you can’t be very social if you’re out of mind. I don’t mean to marginalize the talent here. These are gifted people, and it’s not fair to write off their success to frequency. But I hold, as exhibit A, the fact that some of these people had more “packaged” content channels, and their daily vlog channels eclipsed their initial presence.

    One exception among them: JimmyKimmelLive. Only 60K subscribers, but lots of recent views. Maybe one day Kimmel will grow up to be a YouTube star.

    Behind the Scenes of a YouTube Collaboration: YouTube in 1985

    Below is “YouTube in 1985,” a video collaboration Matt Kobal. I had never heard of Matt before he asked if I’d play the role of a YouTube billing agent.  The video depicts an imaginary 1985-version of YouTube. For the record, I had that much hair and more but spent my time drinking at the New Orleans World Fair, not working in billing.

    Since I advocate that people pursue YouTube collaboration videos to boost their views, I thought I’d point out a few of Matt’s techniques that worked well. I haven’t been doing many collaborations lately, and it feels selfish to pursue popular YouTubers for collaborations while ignoring those with smaller numbers… but generally collaboration videos help the individual with fewer subscribers most.

    The exception is that if two popular YouTubers collaborate, both of their audiences tend to grow. So while I’ll probably pick up a fair number of new subscribers on Friday’s “Retarded Policeman” appearance, Mediocre Films also benefits.

    Let’s look at what Matt did well:

    • Matt communicated with me via Jill Hanner (xgobobeanx). So he seemed more credible. If I was more organized I might have looked at his videos to see if he’s talented. But that usually turns me off of a collab as opposed to getting me excited.
    • He sent a script- he knew where he was going and had an idea. You wouldn’t believe how many “would you like to do a collab” requests I get even after writing a free eBook urging people not to do that.
    • His idea was actually funny to me. And fairly simple.
    • He was persistent but patient. It took me a while to get it done, but I never felt badgered. He also didn’t give up, and I’m glad he didn’t. He started e-mailing in July, and sent his logo (which I failed to use) August 1. So this is not an overnight project.

    Some additional  tips:

    • Try to close the deal quickly since the intrigue of being in a collaboration fades quickly. If I don’t do it immediately, I often lose energy. In this case, I was relieved that he worked around my lousy timing (back pains) and Jill’s timing (she lost her dog in the middle of it).
    • Don’t forget to tell people your username if you ask them to be in a collab. People usually forget to do that. And send them a video that shows you can edit and produce well. It credentializes you. I remember being weary about doing a collaboration with Alan (fallofautumndistro) and later laughing at that hesitation.
    • If I were to try to get a cewebrity like LisaNova in my video, I’d try all of these techniques and might mention a lesser known video of hers to give her a sense of what I was after. People rarely mention your videos beyond the obvious ones.

    Sometimes you groan when you see the results, but I like this one. It’s well produced, and Matt showed a lot of discipline in editing out parts that I had given him, but would have dragged the concept out. He apologized for that, but I respect it. It turns out he’s actually a good actor/director, so I’m glad I wasn’t looking at his YouTube subscriber number to effect my decision (it’s lower than it will be in due time).

    Hopefully it travels. It’s sort of a one-joke concept, but it’s pulled through fairly cleverly. And some of the people, with me as an exception, can actually act (I was in back pain, okay?).

    P.S. Don’t try these on me because I’m too lazy to do my own videos right now- much less collaborations.

    Another YouTube Myth Debunked: “Best Rated” Videos Get Views?

    highest rated video of weekI made a spoof video last week called “Why You Should Rate” that was designed to point out a little YouTube myth. People think that a highly rated video with lots of comments means that they’ll get views. To further illustrate the point, the video itself is one of YouTube’s “top 20” highest rated videos of the week, and has about 7,000 views. Contrast that with my recent “Snake in a Pool,” which has no “honors” and 100,000 plus views.

    While I’m too lazy to disprove this “ratings = views” myth via statistical analysis, I would invite a high school student to take this on as an independent project. Further, they could analyze the correlation between total duration and total views to identify the theoretically ideal video length. The time that optimizes views (I’m betting on 75-90 seconds). There’s plenty of public data to help here, and I’d love to publish the findings.

    While it’s true that a video resulting in lots of comments also often gets lots of views, the comments and views are not directly related. It’s likely the video topic’s  high impact and/or controversial nature that causes other things: views, comments and ratings (although it’s possible that videos ranking high on these ratings are rewarded with preferred placement on the YouTube’s “promoted videos” homepage section to balance the paid videos that sneak there… and that would result in a second wave of views).

    Very few people surf YouTube’s ranked videos on a regular basis. So while the “highest rated” or “most viewed” of all time is almost impossible to dethrone, the daily and weekly honors are little more than ego feeders. The sustainability of a YouTuber is a function of good content, fresh material, a balance of consistency with variety, creator adaptability (I’ll call the Madonna reinvention factor), and a loyal audience that is satisfied enough to watch and share the content with friends.

    In theory, a highly rated video would be highly viewed. But in fact the highly viewed videos are often one-hit wonders that pop outside YouTube and therefore have lots of views by innactive YouTube viewers- those that don’t tend to comment or rate. It’s also true that what we watch isn’t necessarily what we like. Would you rate a highway accident 5 stars? Nope. Would you look?

    So where am I going with this post? The same place I went with this video, which is artificially ranked in the league of HappySlip, Smosh, KevJumba, The Onion, College Humor, and even the Retarded Policeman. Heck I even topped the inexplicably popular “Fred” and one of the”very funny cats” videos.

    In the end, I like the creative experience of YouTube, the people with whom I interact in various ways, the videos that don’t suck, and the revenue subsidy (aka debt-relief fund). But assessing yourself based on subscribers, honors and other proxies to faux fame is fools gold, friend. Shiny and perty, but it will just sink you when you try to swim from the shipwreck. And that’s a mixed metaphor you can take to the bank on your horse that you lead to water in a stitch in time.