Less, but better

Sometimes I resist making content that I know has a higher chance to go viral because it takes two to three times as long to edit compared to my short clips. For example, it takes me about 15 or 20 minutes to edit a clip from a live stream or a short form shoot, and prep it for social. But it takes me between 60 and 120 minutes to edit a video like this breakdown I did of Nike‘s recent campaign. So why would I make one video in the same time it takes me to make six or eight? 

This is the thinking I’ve been using as I try to keep my social accounts filled with content week over week. But here’s what’s interesting about that Nike video: it has over 60,000 views, compared to some of my short form clips which only get about 3,000 views. It might take six times as long, but the impact is more than 20 times greater. So really, if I was running my accounts only based on views, then I would only work on the stuff that takes me longer.

Of course, the math isn’t always that simple. Sometimes the longer videos tank, and sometimes the short ones pop off. But for the most part, the more effort I put in, the better results I get out. This train of thought has me thinking if I should adjust my content strategy on short form platforms to only focus on really high-impact content that has a chance to go viral. 

The benefits of running the numbers goes beyond just my run the numbers series. Quick calculations like this have led me to better decisions, time and time again. Let’s see how it works this time.