On YouTube

As it has so many fields, technology has reshaped the way we produce, consume, and distribute video. The ability to capture and edit high resolution footage using widely available consumer equipment has enabled a generation of independent and enthusiast filmmakers to produce their own content for little or no money. But the technology that has most radically affected the way we interact with video is neither hardware nor software, but rather a storage service that enables users to upload and share video, free of charge. That service, YouTube, has democratized the distribution of video by giving individual users the opportunity to be seen and heard on a massive scale. YouTube is more than a storage service, it is an entirely new medium, one whose formal grammar is only beginning to be articulated. The YouTuber is not a filmmaker in the traditional sense, but an internet artist whose medium is YouTube. His savvy has less to do with cinematic craft than the ability to cultivate and engage his audience. Ironically, the independent film community has largely missed out on the opportunities presented by YouTube by uploading content to Vimeo, a specialist website dedicated to independent filmmaking. This has been a mistake. In doing so, filmmakers needlessly restrict themselves to Vimeo’s comparatively small audience. There is room on YouTube for short films to coexist alongside the music videos, tutorials, and comedic clips that generate so much traffic. Like it or not, the future of independent filmmaking lies with YouTube, the question is simply how to encourage interesting, experimental, and engaging content on the platform.

1. YouTuber Vs. Filmmaker

The YouTuber addresses an audience whose attention span moves at the speed of bandwidth. Because content on the internet is almost exclusively free, the viewer’s only cost is opportunity cost: the cost of not enjoying the next best available option. The most successful YouTubers experiment with technique and form, breaking with filmmaking orthodoxy if necessary. An inspired irreverence for cinematic craft is at the heart of YouTube’s aesthetic. This has led users toward a new formalism—one which moves quickly, references and appropriates pop-culture, and incorporates prominent effects in post-production (crops, dubs, sound effects, changing colors) to enhance comedic and dramatic effect. It is a utilitarian style suited to the peculiarities of the medium, one designed to placate a cynical and impatient viewer.

Feature filmmaking is a notoriously lengthy process fraught with delays concerning finance, talent, locations, and release dates. The YouTuber dispenses with potential complications by overseeing all elements of production himself—he typically writes, stars, directs and finances his own productions. The YouTuber practices “athletic aesthetics” by transforming his art-making into “a fast-paced, high-volume endeavor analogous to the universe of automated high-frequency stock trading.”[1] The YouTuber works quickly because he must. The site is monetized by AdSense, a subsidiary of Google which pays content producers according to a “cost per mille” (CPM) ratio. The ratio is calculated by dividing the percentage of ad impressions (instances in which a user watches at least 30 seconds of an advertisement) that a video receives per thousand views. The average CPM on YouTube is reported to be 7.6, meaning that uploaders receive, on average, $7.60 per thousand views. The YouTuber’s habitual workflow forces him to seek inspiration in unlikely places and to address unusual subjects. His grueling pace becomes a feature of the work itself.

In contrast with a traditional filmmaker, whose creative vision is articulated through acting, cinematography, and sound—in other words, whose presence is felt indirectly—the YouTuber engages directly with his audience. The site facilitates discourse between artist and audience in its comments section. Prominent YouTubers solicit feedback and incorporate their audience’s suggestions in their work. Less well known channels often communicate directly with their audience by replying to comments. Not all feedback is constructive, and occasionally the comments section devolves to name-calling and insults, but the presence of an active and unmediated forum for public discourse emphasizes the centrality of community to YouTube. The filmmaker and YouTuber engage with their audience in fundamentally different ways, the YouTuber embraces his audience by incorporating their input into his art, while the filmmaker resents the need for an audience in order to finance his art.

2. YouTuber as Banker, Filmmaker as Philosopher.

Stendhal once said that the banker who makes a fortune is a true philosopher because clearly he sees that which is. A philosopher considers the meaning of things, while a banker makes an investment that reflects his beliefs, thus synthesizing thought and action. In the context of this metaphor, filmmakers are philosophers and YouTubers are bankers. While the filmmaker produces work that is typically orders removed from current events, the YouTuber’s daily practice means that his videos often address something topical. His success is tied to the ability to anticipate, respond to, and exploit trends. The YouTuber must decide how to allocate a limited resource, his time, in order to maximize viewership. This means selecting a topic which is circulating within public consciousness, but has not yet reached saturation. The key is choosing a subject that has potential for growth. In much the same manner that a banker seeks a stock which is undervalued, the YouTuber seeks a topic that will help carry his video toward virality.

Felix Kjellberg a twenty-sex year old gamer, comedian, and internet provocateur is the mastermind behind “PewDiePie” (rhymes with Cutie Pie), the most subscribed channel on YouTube. PewDiePie has nearly fifty-three million subscribers (for comparison, “JustinBieberVEVO,” the second most highly subscribed English language channel, has just twenty-six million). As of February 2017, Kjellberg’s videos have been viewed 14 billion times. In the past seven days, he released ten videos, each of which has been viewed an average of 4.6 million times. If the channel were broadcast on television, it would be the third most highly rated non-network show, just ahead of Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” which averages 4.4 million daily views. The dynamism of YouTube as a medium becomes clear when we consider that Kjellberg has been able to achieve tremendous viewership on his own.

And yet, in spite of his outsized presence on YouTube, Kjellberg is not a household name. This discrepancy reflects the paradox of YouTube: that the site is simultaneously the second most highly trafficked website on the internet (ahead of Facebook, behind Google) and also home to an insular world of content creators who operate on the fringes mainstream culture. Kjellberg embraces his outsider status. His humor is deliberately crude and, at times, appears designed to incite controversy. A recent episode involving an anti-Semitic joke garnered harsh criticism from a variety of press outlets including the International Business Times[2] and Le Monde[3]. Kjellberg quickly recaptured control of the narrative by releasing an apology video in which he insisted that the joke had been taken out of context. Kjellberg relishes controversy because he knows that even if he’s chastised, mainstream media coverage plays to his advantage. His relentless pace enables him to outmaneuver and overwhelm his critics, proving that there’s no such thing as bad publicity in the war for clicks.

3. Looking Forward: Criticism and YouTube.

To the detriment of YouTube (the corporation), YouTube (the community), and to the filmmakers themselves, independent filmmakers have largely forsaken YouTube in favor of Vimeo, a website that caters specifically to the film community. Vimeo offers some features that YouTube does not—most importantly a staff of critics who promote noteworthy content—but the site’s advantages do not sufficiently compensate for its fundamental weakness: a relatively small audience. If we take for granted that a filmmaker posts his work online in order to share his work with as large an audience as possible, the filmmaker who posts his work to Vimeo rather than YouTube needlessly prevents himself from achieving this goal. The top five most-played videos on YouTube account for a total of 11.48 billion views, compared with just 120.5 million views for the equivalent selection of Vimeo titles—a difference of a multiple of ninety-five.

The independent film community has long been anchored by a handful of festivals, cultural centers, specialty theaters. The unwavering support of this community has enabled the preservation of an art form which has rarely enjoyed mainstream support. Perhaps filmmakers are loyal to Vimeo because the site resembles something a familiar, a likeminded and supportive community. But, in spite Vimeo’s remarkable features, the site’s insularity may be working to its disadvantage.

My suspicion, is that filmmakers have shunned YouTube out of an instinct toward self-preservation. The perception among filmmakers is that if they share their content on Vimeo, they’ll be judged amongst their own. Rather than competing against music videos and viral clips which garner hundreds of millions of views, they will be assessed in the context of other short films. However, the sense of security that Vimeo provides is illusory and its justification is flawed. Whether or not they are willing to admit,  filmmakers who share their content on Vimeo are not merely competing with other short films on Vimeo, they are competing with the rest of the internet, this includes YouTube.

The relative of dominance of Hollywood films over independent titles at the box office says less about the quality of Hollywood films than to the strength of the studio system’s marketing and distribution networks. Hollywood knows how to sell. The remarkable thing about YouTube, is that users like PewDiePie have demonstrated how to out-sell bigger and better funded corporate entities. Advertising works when it is repetitive, when it drowns out competitors though the ubiquity of its message. By producing work each and every day, PewDiePie creates demand for his own product, effectively advertising for himself through his content. The user who regularly browses YouTube develops the habit of seeking out his favorite channels’ daily uploads. By providing a forum in which any user can post their own content, the internet has enabled a relative parity between large and small productions.

In order to take advantage of the new media landscape, independent filmmakers must learn to cultivate an audience. In order to do so, they need to move quickly—this means dispensing with larger projects that require outside financing in favor of smaller, more manageable projects that can be completed with materials at hand. Fortunately, the most basic component, a camera, is already in most filmmakers’ hands. Sean Baker’s critically acclaimed Tangerine (2015) was shot on an iPhone; this is this exactly the style of project that independent filmmakers should be pursuing right now, one that attempts to make something out of nothing, whose most integral component is the director’s own ingenuity. Let’s explore filmmaking as jazz, a marriage of technical ability, collaboration, and improvisation.

YouTube represents the path forward, however the site is plagued by shortcomings. YouTube is currently overrun with Clickbait, provocative (and often misleading) thumbnails and titles that attract an audiences attention but rarely fulfill its expectations. As result, interesting content is often overlooked in favor of clickable content. This problem should be addressed through criticism. Critics who cover pop-culture should devote some of their attention to YouTube. There is much on the site that deserves their consideration, and a host of underappreciated channels that would benefit from such recognition. Just as critical acclaim serves to promote independent films that would otherwise go unnoticed, it could promote lesser-known YouTubers whose work deserves an audience.

In order to encourage filmmakers to join their site, YouTube should develop a more robust critical infrastructure by sourcing recommendations from its users. The mechanics for a democratized criticism already exist elsewhere on the internet, most notably on Tumblr and Pinterest. These sites have been praised by the artist and critic Brad Troemel as host to, “a mutually beneficial system in which independent users endorse content they identify with, thus promoting an artist who benefits from the reference, and thereby establishing their own curatorial ability.” If YouTube were to categorize its offerings by genre (something Vimeo already does) and arrange each genre according to the percentage of “thumbs up” a given video had received (something it already calculates), the site would become easier to navigate and a more rewarding place to browse. Because YouTube is so poorly organized, the site currently fails both viewers and producers.

In summation, YouTube is not perfect. The site is poorly maintained and overrun with spam, and advertising. And yet, in spite of these shortcomings, YouTube is home to some of the most interesting and original content on the internet. If YouTube were to earn the trust of the filmmaking community, the site could increase viewership and engagement, as well as facilitate a revolution in independent cinema. I implore critics of all disciplines to look seriously at YouTube and to endorse creators whose work they admire. I also encourage filmmakers to begin releasing work on YouTube rather than Vimeo. Filmmakers, be more prolific and less precious with your work. Take risks. There is longer any credibility in being underground—being underground simply means that one hasn’t learned to promote oneself, that one isn’t manipulating the system to his advantage

[1] Troemel, Brad. (5/3/2013). “Athletic Aesthetics” Retrieved from: The New Inquiry

[2] Staff Reporter. (1/11/2017). “World's most popular YouTuber lands himself in hot water again.”Retrieved from: International Business Times

[3] Staff Reporter. (1/20/2017). “PewDiePie s’explique après une nouvelle vidéo controversée.” Retrieved from: Le Monde