4 ms·
I've always seen this as a workflow/business failure. Obviously they had a great product -- everyone I've shown EFaP to loves it. They could have spun it into
by VHRanger 7y ago
I've always seen this as a workflow/business failure.
Obviously they had a great product -- everyone I've shown EFaP to loves it. They could have spun it into something of a personal brand (like, say, CGP Grey or Nerdwriter did). But instead killed it off because it felt like more of a burden than a reward.
Might have been on monetization, or personal perspective. In the essay they seem uncompromising on quality, but there are probably ways to get similar quality output with fewer hours by improving the workflow. I imagine if they made tens of thousands of dollars per video, or built a large brand of the video's success, they wouldn't have felt like such a burden either.
- ronilan 7y agoThis was no failure. “A thing isn’t beautiful because it lasts”.
- taytus 7y agoExcept that it is. They say so themselves and also mention that is totally OK with failing.
- ronilan 7y agoExcept that it isn’t. They say so themselves and also mention that “...Every Frame a Painting ended up being both a personal and a professional success.” Edit: and because “Vancouver never Plays Itself” (the phrase, the concept, the idea) has transcended.
- the_af 7y agoMoney is not the solution to everything. A burden cannot always be overcome with money. Sometimes it's natural to kill something off when it has fulfilled its goal. Sometimes people get tired of their projects and want to move on.
- _hardwaregeek 7y agoEh, they got hired by Criterion to do similar videos^[1]. That's not exactly a failure. Plus they no longer have to conform to the YouTube algorithm, play the subscribers game or deal with YouTube comments. I'd call that a success. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND_xkQ9j_A0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND_xkQ9j_A0