I just realized that if you are in some niche, not all topics can be converted into video.
Basically, if you are making reels, you are supposed to get a script that does not use any insider terms, and within like forty seconds, using only childlike language, you are able to encapsulate the whole concept. If you are using some insider terms, then you are going to lose out on context for many people who are not insiders, and who are just new to your video.
So basically, there is a word constraint or script constraint.
Another is that whatever script you have made, it should be something for which you can have A-roll or B-roll. And if the script is something for which you cannot come up with B-roll, then that script is also to be abandoned.
And lastly, the script is supposed to be something that you can easily narrate. Like, the platonic version of this is that, just looking at the B-roll, you are able to come up with the narration on the spot without looking at the script.
So for a good video, the universe of topics available can be the whole niche, but the only ones that qualify have these three characteristics: easy script, easy visuals, and easy narration.
And I just realized that I might have been trying to fit any concept given to me into this mold, and that was my fucking mistake. That’s why things were taking so long and it was so difficult. I was not filtering properly.
It’s like a classic failure in sales: you just get any lead and try to convert it.
No. You are supposed to eliminate as fast as you can.
That means even for tsarbomba, I cannot compress any given topic into a 40 second reel. That’s just not possible. I just have to select topics that are really intuitive to explain and have really intuitive visuals. It’s like top of the funnel computer science content that is actually novel because. I am putting in efforts at topics others are not, even though they are easy to explain.
Your niche might contain 1,000 interesting concepts. You do not owe all 1,000 a video. You want to rapidly find the 50 concepts that naturally want to become videos.
Topic → Can I explain it simply? → Can I show it? → Can I talk through what I’m showing? → Make it.
Another thing is that some things need to be explainers, and some things need to be spectacles.
Education, or topics related to math or science in advanced detail or with a little rigor, are popular in academia. And you won’t see much of them in spectacles like movies. Sci-fi is a different thing because it’s watered down and modified to become a spectacle.
On the other hand, you won’t see office dynamics and all being very popular in academia as research. But it will be highly popular in spectacles like Hollywood, TV shows, or whatever.
So think about the topic you have at hand and whether it is supposed to be a spectacle or an explainer. Do people want to see this thing, or do they want it to be explained?
If it’s magic, no one wants to hear your tricks. They want to see the trick being applied to create magic.
On the other hand, if it’s a tutorial related to what they need to do, nobody wants to hear about your grand claims. They just want to see the thing get done.
See, there are explainer videos where you explain a concept. There are spectacles where you show the impact of the concept, and then there are tutorials where you show how to recreate that step by step.
Take magic.
“How does misdirection work?” can be an explainer.
“Watch me make this card appear inside a lemon” is spectacle.
“Here's exactly how to perform this card force” is a tutorial.
Same domain. Completely different content object.For example, computer science people are fucking tired of seeing some guy sit in front of a keyboard for two seconds and say, “I’m in.”
On the other hand, the audience of some office drama is sick of you talking about some Excel formula or some corporate merger jargon.
Each has different needs.
The computer science guy would rather have a nice explainer or tutorial, and the audience of the thriller movie would rather have a spectacle.
Don’t give the thirsty guy food, and don’t give the hungry guy water.
First figure out if you got to make a spectacle or explainer or a tutorial. Then you select a topic. Then you figure out if the topic is easy to explain, easy to visualize, easy to narrate, and then you go on to commit to it.
And I think this is the elimination process that is going to save my ass when I work for brands in future. Those different brands have different niche, they have their own voice and there are a lot of constraints to figure out. So this is definitely going to save me a lot of headache.
Spectacle is a prerequisite for business, Marketing or finance niche because the audience is inherently has so much yearning
Math, science or compsci can be solely tutorial/explainer given the curiousity and level headedness of the audience
So dont cross serve media to either give each what they want
Ofc you also have genre of spectacular explainers like qoves
where the concept creates the spectacle (i.e face) even if the explainer is scientific
Beyond the spectacle and intuition, you are supposed to make the thing cool, so cool that unrelated people want to join in. A intuitive computer science explainer might be okay, but if it has a really cool color thing going on, then nice. Everyone wants a piece of it. Basically, solid script and coolness will get you anywhere you want. People can then just stay for visuals. Qoves gets this via sexy faces, Mr. Beast and course sellers via money and startups via their. Optics of not giving a fuck about normal corporate way of doing things. It’s about turning things into an experience, an equivalent of a sexy ashtray even a non-smoker would want to keep. In a sense, these are going to be really cool things you. Figure out to incorporate into your media. Curiosity and intuition definitely makes the video work, but aesthetics is what makes it go a hundred x by democratizing it for everyone’s eyes.
Basically eighty percent of the soul of a video comes from the script but eighty percent of the attention comes from the visuals.
Another point is you have to start thinking about scripts all the time. Previously I had such a scarcity of scripts that I would try to turn any thought that I had into a script and it would feel like a good idea because hey my thought is interesting. But then I would realize I am not able to translate it into a video. That is exactly what is supposed to happen. You are supposed to audition hundreds of ideas before you turn anything into a script. For example, you might have a really good epiphany, but it’s just not something that can be translated into media. Then, what’s the point in spending all your energy and time onto turning it into that? Wouldn’t it be nice that you take that epiphany, apply it in your personal life, and just also on the back end side of things, just be able to just that hey this. Thing will not get turned into a video, so let’s not waste efforts on that end of it.
I think we need to philosophize and think of scripts a lot more than we do. Have to create a intuition for just being able to judge by looking at things that hey this is a banger. lets commit.
Like one end of this way of thinking can be that I may not prefer to engage with thoughts or sources or material unless they give me something that I can visualize and talk about or. Might lead to medic effect down the future. So I can adjust my consumption to fit my need of production.
A even more generalized form of this is A to B. Figure out the conflicts between A itself, B itself, and A to B itself. Then history, present, context, and future of A or B and A used to be. Plus how to go from A to B and the drama in it or the history, present context or future in it.
