You can see the archived poll results on the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20221220093741/https://budgetlightforum.com/t/-/72968
I currently give a chat about the flashlight I’m reviewing, provide a graph for the highest level, measure lumens and range.
I’m wanting to know if this is something that the majority like or do you prefer just seeing a very quick demo?
Ditching the testing and talking would increase the models shown up to 70-80 per year, instead of just 20-30.
I like the testing of lumens and range. Night footage shining the flashlight at an object at a known distance and a comparison to other flashlights is great, too.
Talking is not necessary for me because I prefer to read instead of listening.
Maybe you could combine the long and short style. Long for new, interesting (and maybe expensive) flashlights and short for simple and less interesting flashlights.
For me I like a nice side by side comparison so no matter what the reviewer is telling me I can make up my own mind. Then I feel confident when I make a purchase that I spent my money on what is best for me.
Other than that I’m not too fussy unless its one of those reviews where the camera spends more time on the reviewer and their set of shelves instead of letting me see the light up close so I can see if its something I want to buy.
I asked this same question over in reddit and every single person said that for a video they want a quick intro, no testing, and a good night comparison. If they want test data they’ll go read a review on 1lumen or similar.
I think perhaps on BLF we’re more technical minded than those who’re on r/flashlight.
What a POLL misses out on is providing feedback on the above comment. Would those here rather 20 in depth reviews a year compared to 80 videos with good comparisons? You’re way more likely to come across a model you’re actually interested in. There’s channels like Flashlight Enthusiast who covers everything and yet his subs are lower and has been making reviews a year longer than me. He provides excellent info, but his night footage is lacking.
There’s this channel “”Weerapat Kiatdumrong”:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUBxlWWfcBz_Q_ixBrjAjeA”, he doesn’t do any testing whatsoever and yet he’s growing at a faster rate.
I’m starting to think that the majority of viewers are going to be of those who just want to see that flashlight in action, not so much care to seeing tests.
I think I’ll start making quick demos for the cheaper models under $80 usd and do an actual review for anything higher. These cheapies like the Sofirn SC18 at $13-15 isn’t worth the effort.
One other thing is that most viewers don’t actually realize the hours that make a review, currently a video takes me 30+ hours with editing.
if you makes shorter video don’t forget the conclusions part. I prefer talk for this part
I wouldn’t be talking at all in these short demos for the cheaper models, no conclusion. Just a demo like my Sofirn LT1 Mini video. Sofirn loves these so they can directly use on their website, AliExpress, and Amazon.
I struggle to talk and can take 10-15 recordings to get it right without stuttering or making a mess with words.
All the demos are focusing on is the night footage and comparisons with other models. My 2 min demos for my website received more views than my reviews. 2.25 min demo of the Sofirn SP36 Pro got 26K
I like Trail Trek’s videos. They’re like 45 minutes long each on average. Even his ‘shorts’ are 15 minutes long!
But if I was concerned with growth, it doesn’t take much to realize that short videos that get straight to the point get more views.
I think your idea of doing both short and long is a good idea.
What I’ve also noticed is that some channels do the ‘shorts’ where the 30 second clip is literally highlights from the 10 minute video. Sometimes with text/subtitles etc added in.
Personally I don’t watch the shorts myself, but they do seem to pull views.
I voted “Quick overview with talking & night footage”. When I go to youtube with intent, I’m almost always simply looking for beamshots. I do watch longer flashlight reviews, but it’s usually because I was already subscribed to a channel, having found their content helpful/entertaining in the past.
i don’t like video reviews
they always talk too long about stuff i don;t care about
rather skip ahead and look for what i do care about
Here are my thoughts on YT reviews as someone who watches every available video before making purchase.
1. Personal opinion of the reviewer is extremely useful for me. This is what differentiates the quality of the review. Someone reviewing his 3rd flashlight and someone reviewing his 50th flashlight will have the same review content(beamshots/runtimes), except the opinion/conclusion part.
2. Testing and graphs are not mandatory in a video, but can be linked in the description to a forum/site. But I’m guessing that it takes the same amount of effort or time as you have to actually perform those tests. If it saves time to post the test results to a forum or site, that seems to be the better option.
My suggestion - short intro about the light(talking) then beamshots then your personal opinion and comparisons with similar lights on the market. Shorter videos definitely helps with the YT algorithms. You can then upload a runtime/testing only video at the end of each month, covering all the lights you reviewed for that month. Testing lights in bulk should save some time.
Weerapat Kiatdumrong does not provide quantitative data but definitely shares his qualitative analysis of the flashlights. This can also be a middle-ground option for you.
Almost none. I much prefer textual reviews because:
- the tempo of digesting them is precisely what I want
- it’s easier to skip a section that is uninteresting to me (carefully marking sections of a video mitigates that but not to the point of matching textual reviews)
- they are searchable
That said, beam videos are sometimes better than beamshots. This is the only part of video reviews that I actually like….and only in cases when there is something unusual going on that is not easy to see on pics.
Thank you for all the feedback and suggestions.
I had a bit of time to think and realize that I can’t possibly have a chat without some form of testing, I can’t give a proper conclusion without at least knowing how the light behaves, it’s just a graph takes a couple of hours to make.
I’m most likely going to skip walking around with my camera and gimbal, at least not for the cheaper models. Dropping the drone photos on anything under 4000-5000 lumens will help too. I think I’ve been trying to include too much for ever model.