[Random note]Maybe a build log with no explanation is more in demand (Patreon)

For the last two videos, which we have been trying to brush up gradually without changing the video production process much, we did not explain anything, almost to the point of not having any explanations in the video at all.

However, I have seen a visible improvement in viewer retention rates compared to before, so it must have been effective.

It may seem unkind not to provide explanations in a video, but I have recently come to feel that not daring to do so may work in the right direction.

I myself have a habit of wanting to explain things (as you can tell from my past articles on the making process), so I will continue to omit explanations in my videos.

┃Did the improvement in video production improve the data? (Results)

Now, in the past two videos, we have improved the camera work and direction.

As a result, viewer retention rates are improving.

■Effectiveness of video production improvement is generally good; further brushing up is needed.

Click here for past status.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/real-purpose-of-78495625 

Here's the data from the Kashimakaze video.

I've written before that the longer these types of work videos are, the more likely they are to lose viewer retention, but I guess the data is good this time because I summarized it in 25 minutes.

It is desirable to cut scenes that do not look interesting as much as possible, because too much length is a burden for the viewer.

The areas that were cut drastically compared to the previous version were the surface treatment and temporary dry fit sections. I cut and edited them in a skip-and-skip manner.

Inevitably, this part of the process becomes monotonous and uninteresting. So this time, I made it so that it takes only 3 minutes to finish the temporary assembly, but I think this is still too long.

Ideally, I would like to make it shorter in the future, so that the tentative assembly is finished in 30 seconds or so when I notice it.

For example, a good producer of Gunpla videos may assemble half of the surface treatment process in one cut, and complete it in the next cut. The surface treatment process is not shown in the video. It must be a part that is not seen very often.

I myself don't build Gunpla at all, but I try to follow new videos about contributors who have very good video production.

┃The utility of not explaining can be surprisingly large.

This kind of omission of more and more explanations and general processes is likely to lead to a lack of explanation at first glance, but I have a theory that viewers are not looking for explanations or commentary in my videos in the first place.

As I have said many times before, for viewers who do not assemble many garage kits, there is a strong possibility that they are not looking for educational content but for general entertainment, so I have no choice but to steer them in that direction.

The areas with low retention rates tend to be those with a lot of surface treatment and explanation, but these areas are usually not seen.

Therefore, if you cut out the parts that are not being watched, you can kill two birds with one stone by reducing the editing effort and making it easier for the viewer to watch.

If the video itself is used as an instructional tool, it becomes redundant and explanatory.

This makes it difficult to attract new garage kit fans.

Therefore, I dare say that if we skip over the troublesome parts and focus on the interesting parts, it will be easier for interested viewers to get their hands on garage kits.

My current video policy is that it is OK if it can be a gateway to GK, so to speak. I'll leave the explanation of how to make it and such to others.

As with anything, exclusive content that is not newcomer-friendly will only go out of business. So it would be good if we can increase the number of new people and make it a culture and content that we can enjoy together in the future. haha!