Discussion
This study highlights how digital media, particularly a YouTube video, provide opportunities for opening up access to scientific sources. As argued by Birte Fähnrich (2021), digital media might lead to news ways and spaces to communicate and even to interact with them. Potentially, this might lead to diversifying who is involved and engaged in science communication. Drawing together the three themes and their various sub-themes forming our results, we argue how our video reflects such a new way and space to access scientific information. We will do so by returning and discussing both guiding research questions: We aimed to 1) explore how the audience reacted to the video and 2) examine how this video can be impactful for science communication.
To answer our first question—how do audiences respond to the video?—we show that commenters engaged with the video's content in positive and supportive ways, noting especially the simplicity, production, and value of the channel. These comments were often imbued with affect, not just relating praise and thanks, but also extending further to indicate how the channel as a whole has affected one's life, identity or career. So the video offers a space for accessing and communicating (about) science, but leaving a comment also highlights a means of interaction.
More explicitly, and perhaps more interestingly, our second research question of how this video and its engagement might be important or impactful for science communication demonstrates two things: First, our findings resonate with and support existing literature on science communication on the value of having simple stories with quality production and a consistent distribution. The use of a branded channel on a known social media platform can be seen as an effective way to communicate science. Through praise, thanks, and affect, the comments articulated and supported what the commenters valued in their science communication experience, including simplicity, quality production, and the channel's long-term efforts. Science communication practitioners can be reminded here that simple messages produced consistently with attention spent on production could potentially result in more attention towards the pieces.
Second, the analysis oriented our thinking towards considering the long-term impact of science communication more broadly. Unique about this finding is that we could observe not only how the comments praised this video, but how the channel more generally can be seen as changing life trajectories—a new way of engaging with science communication? Not all science communication outlets will be as successful as this channel, but this video, as a reflective moment in its success, revealed an approach that needs further consideration. While there are clear formulas employed here for getting higher numbers of views and subscriptions, we are invited not only to think about immediate production and reception, but also to think about audience engagement beyond the casual viewers. This would tap into what we call the "long tail" of science communication.
The long tail is the long-term, prevailing value of science communication that lasts for a viewer long beyond their initial view, moments in which a cumulative experience would prompt a viewer to make changes in their life. The "long tailer" is the person who acknowledges this influence that motivates changes in their life. Borrowing from marketing, the term "long tail" in this instance refers to a cultural product that remains of value over time and for a niche audience (Anderson, 2004). As shown in our examples, several commenters acknowledged the channel motivating them to change, such as being inspired to study STEM topics, becoming excited about space and science, or putting one on a pathway to education. These long tailers are viewers who watched not just this one video, but they become fans and absorb the science communication content over time (such as the commenter that noted watching since 2015).
By thinking through this long tail approach, we see the benefit of thinking not just about more eyes on videos, but also about the value of the lasting impact of science communication. The focus is on immediate viewership and viewers that will be impacted in the long-term. In this, too, we can also be encouraged to think about the ethics of our stories. As Fabien Medvecky and Joan Leach (2019) noted, who is framing the stories and who they are framed to is also important, and we can think about hearing more diverse voices and telling more diverse stories for a social good, not just for more popularity. We can aim to affect more people than just our immediate audience on one video. More connection, then, rather than more eyes, becomes our objective. So, an emphasis on fostering a sense of accessibility and presenting the content in an appealing and engaging way understandable to the audience builds not just a sense of connection, but it might even offer a sense of community for some of its viewers. To us, this emphasizes the importance of the human touch and emotion which the Kurzgesagt video (and channel) might evoke or inspire, which then is seemingly more important here than metrics or number of viewers.
There is an obvious parallel here between the mix of science education and science communication that happens in relation to school-aged children. Over the course of educational offering, students are exposed to, on a daily basis, new knowledge about scientific practice. These moments are often punctuated by trips to science museums or educators using video materials such as those produced by Kurzgesagt to reinforce students' awareness and interest. By taking a long tail approach, we focus on the inspiration and the exposure to different topics that may not show immediate effects but have the potential to change futures in line with scientific understandings.