Preface: I watched a ton of terrible motorcycle review videos online and it pissed me off. Enjoy the fruits of my anger via this rant.
It's ironic that in the golden age of information, good information is so hard to find. Case in point: online motorcycle review videos. If you regularly search for and consume online motorcycle content on any sort of a regular basis, you've undoubtedly seen just how bad 90 percent of these half-ass motorcycle reviews actually are. Sadly, almost the entire genre comprises a practically bottomless well of ill-informed neophytes with limited vocabularies spewing simplistic opinions about complicated machines they only barely understand. At the moment, the primary digital petri dish culturing this pandemic of online malady is YouTube. Let's deconstruct why there are so many bad motorcycle review videos on the platform, and at what YouTube has done to incentivize the creation of so much low-quality content from clearly unqualified reviewers.
Ad revenue, the 'algorithm', and YouTube as a search engine
If you've been a longtime user of YouTube, you've no doubt noticed how drastically the platform has changed over the past few years. Once considered the reliable voice for independent video makers across countless genres, YouTube has recently been reinventing itself as a mainstream media network and search engine, decidedly and thoroughly abandoning its original business model as an alternative haven for niche interests and closely linked online communities. If you have any doubt about that, just take a look at the YouTube homepage. It is rife with videos from major media networks. You can't find nearly as many true independents anymore. It has all been replaced with Jimmy Kimmel monologues, Saturday Night Live sketches, and news clips from CNN.
With this change, many creators of motorcycle content (which is already niche subject matter in and of itself) realized that as a form of entertainment, they were being rudely shoved out of the way by Youtube's algorithm system, which decides what videos to suggest to viewers based on things like topic, category, and channel type. As a result, channels that used to pull in a decent living for their creators (or a least a nice chunk of side cash) from YouTube advertising revenue via things like motovlogs, lifestyle vids, and riding footage began going broke. This left but one semi-reliable alternative to staying alive: manipulation of YouTube as a search engine. You see, YouTube is the second most popular search engine in the world after Google, and as it turns out, one of the most popular searches for motorcycle videos is the bike review. So it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that many of these vids are being made by people who don't work in the motorcycle industry, have no journalistic experience, and who would otherwise have no academic or professional interest in reviewing bikes. But bike review vids are money makers and can help a channel grow, so therein lies the rub.
Contributing factor: The 'demo' ride
Dealerships, whether wittingly or unwittingly, have helped enable the filming of low-quality motorcycle reviews through the hosting of events such as free demo ride days, where anyone with a motorcycle license can come and test-ride a new bike for a few miles to get an initial impression. These happenings draw motorcycle YouTubers like moths to a flame. They show up eagerly, fully equipped with a helmet-mounted GoPro and an inflated sense of confidence. What usually follows next borders on pathetic, as the would-be review expert proceeds to give a 'comprehensive' rundown of the bike. This is done while poking gently along on a 30-mile-per-hour guided ride around the block while simultaneously trying to figure out where all the controls are located. These content creators should be embarrassed and ashamed of what they're doing. Instead, most seem quite proud of themselves. Maybe it's because they know that with the right video title, thumbnail, and search tags they'll get lots of views and soon find themselves in ad revenue nirvana, regardless of how shitty the video might actually be.
The framework, language, and lexicon of an incompetent review
Visually, inept motorcycle review videos tent to fall along two extremes: either the video is shot entirely with an unnecessarily wide-angle GoPro or similar action cam, or a laughable attempt is made at using cinematic techniques, most of which are incorrectly applied and poorly executed. Both approaches create an annoying distraction from what the viewer actually came to find, which is reliable, in-depth information about the bike. If the video is shot so poorly that the viewer can't even tell what the bike actually looks like, how can he or she be expected to take the rest of the effort seriously? As a side note to the importance of correct visual representation, I should point out that audio quality counts as well. But you get the idea. This rant isn't intended to be a lesson in videography.
The language used in many of these abortions is both predictable and meaningless. The positive descriptor keywords will be gems like "awesome", "amazing," and "sick" to list a few. "Oh man, this motorcycle is awesome! The power is amaaaaaazing! The handling is absolutely sick!" None of these words tell me anything except that the idiot doing the review is impressed. They are dead words that no longer carry the impacts or meanings which were originally intended. They are used simply because the reviewer doesn't command a wider, more effective vocabulary.
Likewise, technical terms used by the incompetent reviewer will be generic words that don't offer anything substantive. "The handling feels very good." This from someone who probably can't even describe the basics of how motorcycle suspension functions. "The brakes work really well." You don't say? Last time I checked, all new motorcycle brakes worked well. It's kinda the law, after all. Again, none of that language means a thing. I gain no useful knowledge by listening to such nonsense. That said, a good bike review doesn't have to be manifestly technical. In fact, a good review doesn't have to mention numbers at all. But something concrete upon which to build a foundation should always be offered. That usually starts with being a seasoned and experienced motorcyclist and having access to a given bike for more than 15 minutes. If you've only been riding for a year and only had your hands on the bike for a half-hour, your ass probably has no business doing a bike review vid.
Why did I feel strongly enough about this topic to write an article?
The answer to that question is, well, I don't exactly know. Maybe it has to do with what I perceive as a lack of content creator integrity. The questions that come to my mind are always things like, "How bad are you willing to make yourself look for money? How much misinformation are you willing to spread so long as there's a profit to be made?" Or maybe I'm frustrated at how YouTube continually incentivizes poor conduct and bad behavior. Or maybe it's because of the potentially bad influence making videos for all the wrong reasons could have on new riders. I guess the answer might be, "It's complicated."
In the end, this all comes down to intellectual honesty and a certain amount of self awareness. I could've taken the low road to YouTube notoriety long ago, but I intentionally chose not to. Inept motorcycle reviews are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the useless, self-motivated garbage YouTube regularly promotes. Not all attention is good attention, but we've long since abandoned that simple rule in both traditional and social media. It needs to be retaught before every single person with a social media presence decides that looking like a fool is perfectly fine so long as it makes them popular.
Komentar
Posting Komentar