Why do dumb videos have a knack of being popular online?

August 3, 2007 11:08 AM

Why do dumb videos have a knack of being popular online?

I have a video link blog and on a daily basis, I encounter incredible work by filmmakers. Most times, these quality videos live in obscurity while the dumbest videos float to the top of popularity charts. Now I understand, this isn't any different from what happens in our movie industry but this can be rationalized: there are major studios pouring millions of dollars marketing into their products.

The online world is based on what people are linking to. I would expect for people to link to things that affect them in a personal way instead of this mass regurgitation.

I understand I am being condescending to describe videos that I don't like as crap. But ask yourselves, when is the last time you watched something online that moved you? How often do you see videos worth your time? Will anything besides college humor & geek entertainment work online? Do you think it is important to change this trend?

p.s. I like the videos that are shared on Metafilter. Other sites like Digg are big piles of waste.

posted by Ajit AP to media & arts (13 comments total)

Where are you finding all these great videos and how much trouble do you go to in order to find them?

I regularly watch fantastic movie (the kind you see in the cinema and/or rent on DVD), but I have to work in order to find them. If I just watched trailers on TV and looked at the big ads in the paper, all I'd notice would be "Bratz" and the like. But as a film buff, I'm actively researching small indy films. I have a list of directors and writers that I like, and I actively search for them.

I'M the one who always tells my more mainstream friends about these films. They sometimes ask, "How do you even KNOW about them?" This is because they just skim the popular press and TV, so of course they don't learn what I learn.

So, yes, marketing matters. If people aren't going to research, they're only going to learn about the films that shout the loudest (a.k.a. that have the most marketing money).

Now, I'm more like my mainstream friends when it comes to the web. There may be great stuff out there, but I don't know about it. I know what I see on youtubes homepage. I don't bother delving further.
posted by grumblebee at 11:16 AM on August 3, 2007

No different than TV. America's Funniest Videos is more popular than Deadwood.
posted by smackfu at 11:26 AM on August 3, 2007

In my experience, people look to online video for a quick laugh - they're not looking for a moving experience.

It's pretty rare that a 1-2 minute video clip can touch people in a personal way, it's pretty easy for a 1-2 minute video clip to make people laugh. My guess - it's simply a matter of volume.
posted by Nodecam at 11:30 AM on August 3, 2007

So I went to your blog, "Dear Stranger" didn't grab my attention in the first 10 seconds and I didn't know enough about it to decide if it was worth my time commitment. The Russian apartment Tetris video, on the other hand, did grab my attention in the first 10 seconds and the entire contents of the video were immediately obvious just from the title.

I would guess that it comes down to the instant entertainment value of the clip, versus the desire to invest time and attention into something that may or may not pay off.
posted by 517 at 11:32 AM on August 3, 2007

I think the situation has several aspects:

First, it seems like the majority of people like to laugh more than they like to think. Thinking takes effort and is often a painful experience, particularly if you're invited or challenged to think about things that challenge your comfortable, established worldview. A lot of people just don't find that kind of thought as enjoyable as watching someone get hit in the nuts. Also, it's less socially risky, I think, to like that kind of thing. Thought-provoking content tends to be to some extent controversial, and not always in an easy "LOLXTIANS" sort of way, so posting it/discussing it can be percieved opening one's self up to criticism/ridicule. My suspicion is that a lot of online viral viewers want to have a quick laugh, not expand their minds. Maybe I'm being too elitist too, but that's kind of the feeling I get.

Second, a lot of people don't make the time for longer films/videos. I love film, but I have a hard time fitting time to sit down for two hours and watch something serious more than once every couple of weeks these days. A lot of these silly/stupid videos are less than five minutes long, and that's the sort of thing that your average viewer can fit into an otherwise-occupied schedule for a quick laugh. I know there are a lot of <5 -minute shorts that're pretty damn wonderful, but they still get overlooked due to the aforementioned preference for quick, silly video.br>
Third, making a silly viral video is easier and has a lower barrier to entry than making an intelligent film or video, so there are a lot of them. In theory, the minority of good stuff should filter to the top (isn't that what Metafilter is for?) but the majority of tastemakers want to see people get hit in the nuts. Just as a counterexample, though, did you see the recently-linked BBC-sponsored project to re-create "The Man with the Movie Camera" using modern, community-gathered imagery?

For the record, I've been known to laugh at people getting hit in the nuts, but I also enjoy serious film. Ajit AP, thanks for posting this and indirectly bringing your Projects post to my attention. :)
posted by Alterscape at 11:37 AM on August 3, 2007

People look to online video for a quick laugh - they're not looking for a moving experience.

I'm going to have to second this. Right now my life is extremely busy and sometimes at opportune times I like to find a short, amusing clip to pick me up. I have very extensive interests in the world around me but I can't follow that up very well.

Then again, the clips like Fat Lady Falls Downstairs with hundreds of comments like "LOL!!!!" "fat bitch pwned!", etc, just leave me shaking my head. If there's ever an argument for philosophical automatons brought to life, that's it.
posted by rolypolyman at 12:11 PM on August 3, 2007

the majority of tastemakers want to see people get hit in the nuts

It works on so many levels!
posted by turaho at 1:04 PM on August 3, 2007 [1 favorite]

My logic is that there is always going to be more crappy videos out there than gems, and my time is too valuable for me to take a chance on anything except clips that are short in length (maybe 30 seconds or less). Often times I follow links to Youtube videos, see a runtime that I don't feel like taking a chance on, and close the page immediately.

Perhaps I'm missing out on all sorts of great things that are out there, because I'll admit that short clips usually don't have the ability to be rich and fulfilling ... they trend towards the bizarre, disturbing or funny. However, keeping up to date with the latest nonsense makes for easy conversation and ice breaking in social situations. This is a big win for me.

At your average backyard BBQ or house party would you rather someone tell you about a great documentary on migrant workers that you owe it to yourself to check out on Google Video when you get home, or have them whip out their fancy cell phone and pull up the Dramatic Chipmunk on Youtube Mobile without the need to run to a computer? Instant laughs, and then the conversation and group analysis can begin (And you can impress all of your babes with the fact that the dramatic chipmunk is actually a prairie dog)

I guess that if a friend personally says "Watch this long clip, it's worth your time because of reasons X, Y and Z" then I may actually sit through it, but that's rare.

Since I only tend to see short funny clips, these are the only type of clip I'm likely to be linking on my blog/facebook/im-profile or sending to friends. If other people out there are anything like me, the trend continues outward.
posted by adamk at 1:32 PM on August 3, 2007

this isn't any different from what happens in our movie industry but this can be rationalized: there are major studios pouring millions of dollars marketing into their products.

Millions of dollars of marketing don't fully explain the nature of successful movies, though. Marketing isn't a mind control device: movies which get multi-million dollar marketing budgets do flop sometimes. Sure, marketing has some effect, but ultimately people go see what they want to see. And yet, movies which you and I find distasteful are still successful on a regular basis. The movies and the online videos are successful for the same reason: that's what a lot of people like. If you were hoping to find that most people were really deep, thoughtful movie viewers, and that lowbrow Hollywood films were successful solely because of marketing, I'm sorry to disappoint you.

Do you think it is important to change this trend?

No. If there's any benefit to online movies over major movie studios, it's simply that there's a much wider variety to choose from online. I can find cute yet bittersweet movies like Kiwi!, you can find whatever you like, and the sort of people who like "fat woman falls down stairs" can find that. Unlike traditional movie studios, which will release only a very limited number of movies per year, I don't see the lowbrow humor as a threat to other types of movies online. There's room for thousands of niches online.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:38 PM on August 3, 2007

It's basically just the accessibility of massive distribution channels via the internet. In a tradition media sense, there are various checks and balances, quality control, that one encounters in order to get their media distributed.

On the 'ol internet, it's all free and pretty much a level playing field. This goes for more than just video, but writing, photography, application development, everything.

There's still the same ratio of quality out there, the difference is the consumer is the filter now, rather than a board of programming directors.
posted by travis vocino at 3:07 PM on August 3, 2007

But ask yourselves, when is the last time you watched something online that moved you?

Tuesday

Will anything besides college humor & geek entertainment work online? Do you think it is important to change this trend?

Why do dumb videos have a knack of being popular online?

People as a collective are not as smart as you think: they're a smoothed out average. This will not change. I don't think it is necessarily important to change this, because you can't change the world, only the way you experience it. Focus on individual minds, and it's a lot more rewarding. But YMMV!
posted by saturnine at 3:11 PM on August 3, 2007

As someone who's behind some of these "dumb" videos, I should probably chime in (I stand behind [most of] my group's work, which you can find here).

it seems like the majority of people like to laugh more than they like to think. Thinking takes effort and is often a painful experience, particularly if you're invited or challenged to think about things that challenge your comfortable, established worldview.

Yeah, I personally think this view could be construed as a bit elitist. Just don't confuse intelligence with taste, or confuse either with good character. That is the path of the pretentious. I'm not judging you, Alterscape, I don't know you. All I can give you is a counterexample in my friends and I. We have high IQs, are well read, can talk about politics intelligently, and challenge each other's worldview. But we also love to laugh, and to make others laugh.

If you enjoy documentaries that ruthlessly point out all of the hypocrisies of American foreign policy, and thoughtful, poignant films that sink you into existential despair, then hey....go for it, I sometimes enjoy these too. But to me those things have their time and place, and there's plenty of time to enjoy some laughs on the side. That's the beauty of these "dumb" shorts. They're short.

And keep in mind a lot of people have ample opportunity to experience "things that move them" and "things that affect them in a personal way" in their everyday lives. Maybe they're looking to the net as a way to take a break from all that, and enjoy the timeless beauty and pure joy of watching an oblivious victim take one squarely in the rocky mountain oysters.
posted by Idiot Mittens at 4:35 PM on August 3, 2007

I have nothing against funny videos. I even like silliness but a lot of stuff is crap.

The dramatic chipmunk is cute but is it really funny? Classic example of "WTF, people think this is funny?" moment. I have to admit that the video did appear on my site as another writer posted it.
posted by Ajit AP at 1:53 PM on August 8, 2007