Another point in his favour may be the clear view of the phone in the thumbnail, considering that his target audience may recognise it by appearance. However, I still think he should’ve just said it in the title for everyone else, and for audience members for whom his video is their first exposure to the model.
Regarding the last section, though, I see clickbait titles less as ‘it doesn’t cover every nuance of the video’ and more ‘the title is overly reductive, genuinely misleading or pointlessly vague’, unless there’s artistic reasons it’s that way. A review title should name the reviewed product imo; it barely increases its length and lets people decide better whether the content’s worth their time without wasting any of it.
I also don’t think a title summarising a video’s central point well makes it bad. A good video doesn’t just repeat different wordings of the title for 10 minutes, it goes into specifics to argue why that is. I sometimes see nuanced, heavily researched video essays get some comment like ‘saved you half an hour, guys! (the main point in one sentence!)’ because the video didn’t… have some massive plot twist, I guess? And I don’t get why people would approach informational content that way. It feels anti-intellectual. Maybe the Silent Hill nurses are a work of art; the video would only be bad if it can’t argue that well or has a lot of fluff between the points.
Because saying “Pixel 69: 85/100” as a video title will actively discourage anyone from watching the video. And then you have the metacritic problem. Maybe one channel prioritizes battery life and weights heavily toward that while a different channel weights how easy it is to change the UI to a tentacle based one. Its why most outlets are doing what they can to NOT give numeric scores and the like.
But that also extends to “Pixel 69: I really like it and you should buy it”. People just get their headline, don’t watch, and the video was a waste.
Been a hot minute since I was in school, but this is basic writing. You want something that gives the reader an idea of what your essay is about, but you also want to encourage them to keep reading. If your thesis statement is the entirety of your argument then you are wasting everyone’s time.
And, in that regard, "This phone is nearly perfect’ is a REALLY good title. From what I know of Marques content, I think it is bullshit, but that is a different discussion. It tells you that he is going to be incredibly positive about this phone, but it has at least one major flaw.
Personally? I agree and would love to have “Pixel 69” in the title (what phone even is this? I can’t be bothered to look). But I can very much see how, in the world we live in, that would have the same issue as “Pixel 69: 85/100” and just exist to let people measure dick sizes or confirm they want to buy something from a headline alone.
Another point in his favour may be the clear view of the phone in the thumbnail, considering that his target audience may recognise it by appearance. However, I still think he should’ve just said it in the title for everyone else, and for audience members for whom his video is their first exposure to the model.
Regarding the last section, though, I see clickbait titles less as ‘it doesn’t cover every nuance of the video’ and more ‘the title is overly reductive, genuinely misleading or pointlessly vague’, unless there’s artistic reasons it’s that way. A review title should name the reviewed product imo; it barely increases its length and lets people decide better whether the content’s worth their time without wasting any of it.
I also don’t think a title summarising a video’s central point well makes it bad. A good video doesn’t just repeat different wordings of the title for 10 minutes, it goes into specifics to argue why that is. I sometimes see nuanced, heavily researched video essays get some comment like ‘saved you half an hour, guys! (the main point in one sentence!)’ because the video didn’t… have some massive plot twist, I guess? And I don’t get why people would approach informational content that way. It feels anti-intellectual. Maybe the Silent Hill nurses are a work of art; the video would only be bad if it can’t argue that well or has a lot of fluff between the points.
Because saying “Pixel 69: 85/100” as a video title will actively discourage anyone from watching the video. And then you have the metacritic problem. Maybe one channel prioritizes battery life and weights heavily toward that while a different channel weights how easy it is to change the UI to a tentacle based one. Its why most outlets are doing what they can to NOT give numeric scores and the like.
But that also extends to “Pixel 69: I really like it and you should buy it”. People just get their headline, don’t watch, and the video was a waste.
Been a hot minute since I was in school, but this is basic writing. You want something that gives the reader an idea of what your essay is about, but you also want to encourage them to keep reading. If your thesis statement is the entirety of your argument then you are wasting everyone’s time.
And, in that regard, "This phone is nearly perfect’ is a REALLY good title. From what I know of Marques content, I think it is bullshit, but that is a different discussion. It tells you that he is going to be incredibly positive about this phone, but it has at least one major flaw.
Personally? I agree and would love to have “Pixel 69” in the title (what phone even is this? I can’t be bothered to look). But I can very much see how, in the world we live in, that would have the same issue as “Pixel 69: 85/100” and just exist to let people measure dick sizes or confirm they want to buy something from a headline alone.