"We Lied to You...And We'll Do It Again" - Communicating Science Via YouTube

Spurred on by both instrumental desires to reach and inform public audiences or communal desire to make social impact and a better world (van der Sanden, & Osseweijer, 2011), science communication, in a broad and simplest definition, is communication that revolves around the goals of telling the story of science in a compelling way to any range of non-experts, to include expert scientists in different fields (Medvecky & Leach, 2019). Science communication is often used for purposes like education, archiving, or promotion (Debove et al., 2021), reaching those that are appreciative of the message as well as those that may be uninterested and even skeptical of the information being relayed and the stories being told (Longnecker, 2023).

Over the past few decades, science communication - like many other forms of communication - also had to establish its position in a digitally mediated world. On social media platforms, science communication in a multimodal form (like on YouTube) has been conceptualized as a space for both media professionals and non-professionals to create factual, science narratives to reach diverse and distributed audiences (Birch, 2011; Welbourne & Grant, 2016). Academics and research institutions have taken advantage of these digital affordances brought about by social media platforms, like ease of access and visibility (Medvecky & Leach, 2019; van der Sanden, & Osseweijer, 2011) and are often trying to think of the best ways to deliver their work, whether it be those outside of one’s department or a larger public.

While translating complicated topics for non-experts can be seen as a worthwhile endeavor, simply putting content on YouTube does not guarantee an audience. However, often a channel or video’s “success” is counted through its popularity, be it in the form of an audience, number of video views, or subscribers (Welbourne & Grant, 2016). Popularity is in some ways defined by YouTube itself, as when Welbourne & Grant (2016) note, “the popularity of YouTube content is not determined by the quantity of videos a channel uploads but by the views and engagement” (p. 709).

Previous work on YouTube science communication videos has considered which videos are the most popular and offer best practices and how-to solutions to make science communication videos better. For instance, Debove, et al., (2021) looked at the most successful science communication creators in France; Muñoz Morcillo, et al. (2016) create typologies of popular web videos; and Welbourne & Grant (2016) and Velho et al. (2020) look at factors that affect the channel and popularity. However, most of these studies take a highly practical focus which discusses the technicalities or infrastructures of these videos over the effect or reception of the content they contain by an audience.

Further, these how-to recommendations fit typical instrumental uses of science communication which “sets out to ‘communicate something,’” and with that aim “comes a clear understanding of what it means to communicate successfully” (Nordmann, 2011, p. 106). While there are what Borghol et al. (2012) term ‘content-agnostic factors’ like algorithms or existing social network connections that can affect the popularity of a video, other content-driven factors like message, style, duration, and delivery are also frequent targets of how-to recommendations (Welbourne & Grant, 2016). For instance, Welbourne and Grant (2015) point out best practices for time, noting that the most popular videos on YouTube are less than five minutes. Further, simplicity of story is often a recommendation (Medvecky & Leach, 2019) and visuals are often key to relating scientific data (Schmidt Kjærgaard, 2011) and creating engaging science communication videos on YouTube (Boy, et al., 2020).

Welbourne and Grant (2016) also draw attention to the value of a channel’s consistency and that a regular communicative personality helps maintain engagement and a brand; they note more popular videos tend to have a recognizable face. This consistency implicitly suggests that videos are not one-offs, and that one video is just one element in a larger sample. But although helpful, these recommendations for best-practices on YouTube are often couched in the aim of getting more viewers. And while we often use these how-to recommendations for thinking about how to get more eyes on our work, we found that for Kurzgesagt’s work these practices were often already implemented. So, we could see how previous studies could be practically applied and successful (i.e. viewership of Kurzgesagt's videos is consistently high), yet what is missed in the current scope of studies is understanding what kind of effects, potentially even long-term effects, these produced videos might have on the audiences they are tailored to.

As such, instead of taking a focus on metrics or formulas, we explore what kind of impact these science communication videos might have on their viewers. Doing so invites us to reflect on the potential long-term impact, or at the very least offers a first more sentimental response to science communication topics. We can think broader than views and quantifiable metrics of a video and towards the long term impact of science communication, or what we call the long tail. The long tail, as a concept once coined and popularized in marketing studies by Chris Anderson (2004), illustrates a process that pays attention to niche markets and emphasizes the longevity of a product over its immediate success factor. While there are rigorous quantitative and qualitative methods through which academics can look at the long term “success” of a video such as where viewers are polled (Grant, 2011), and more holistic and longitudinal questions are asked of a science communication (Tyden, 1996; Cavanah, et al., 2023), we argue that in the particular case of this Kurzgesagt video, given its unique topic and self reflection, viewer comments are able to demonstrate the long term impact of this channel, or its “long tail.” While not representative of all Kurzgesagt videos, the glimpse this video gives of the audience connection to the channel shows more clearly forms of science communication impact through a long tail relationship. To show this, we will walk through our video to show not only how the video reflects this best practice approach, but also how affect is also a factor in measuring success. As opposed to a focus solely on metrics, we can do our assessments and understandings of science communication in digital contexts differently.

Our Video
This research focuses on one particular video to show a bit more in depth science communication as a practice of audience engagement. As noted, part of the motivation was its connection to the authors’ larger project on building trust in science communication. Although the same project also released a Massive Open Online Course on the topic (see Pridmore and Tulin, 2021), consisting of videos with an educational focus, the reach and accessibility of the Kurzgesagt video was critical to understand the impact of this type of science communication on audiences. Kurzgesagt and their English YouTube channel has been able to build up a large subscription of viewers, suggesting a certain level of involvement. Building on the affordances of YouTube, and as a professional company, the videos on this channel maintain high quality visuals and production standards. In this video, Kurzgesagt detailed openly how they simplify complex subjects into easily understandable videos to fit time constraints and audience expectations. Kurzgesagt called these simplified explanations of complex scientific concepts, "lies to children", acknowledging that simplification can be problematic as it can lead to misleading definiteness or a false sense of security.

To address this, they argue that they strive to be transparent about their sources and simplifications, and aim to inspire curiosity and further learning. In the video, they also discuss the challenges of science communication, such as dealing with disagreeing experts, nuances to scientific results, and the complex systems with no easy solutions. Ultimately, though, the video describes that their goal is to distill the scientific information in easily consumable ways to spark curiosity and inspire people to learn more about the universe, while being responsible and protecting the integrity of their videos. The team explicitly notes the connection between the video and the authors’ TRESCA project when they state (at 7:24), “We are still trying to improve and want to be transparent about what we are trying to do. For example we are taking part in the TRESCA project about science communication to learn more.” This description itself simplifies a video and a narrative storyline that deserves a more in depth experience:

To get a sense of viewer responses, for our study, we selected and analyzed the top fifty original comments on our Kurzgesagt video (the fifty most liked according to YouTube’s algorithm in 2024), a little over two years after the publication of the video. Len-Rios et al. (2014) argue that examining online comments are “uniquely suitable for exploring how readers, through their cultural lenses, perceive the relationship among science, the individual, and society” (p. 779). While selecting only top comments is a limitation, they are also a suitable sample as it directly resembles the user experience of what audiences would encounter upon seeing the YouTube video directly (Rogers, 2019). This purposive sampling helps to better understand how users would interact (or not) with the channel and other commenters (Rogers, 2019). For this study, we focus only on the initial comments that were part of how they became a top fifty comment and not any replies to these comments.

To conduct our study, we used thematic analysis to code and assess the comments. According to Braun and Clark (2006; 2021), after data selection, the process of thematic analysis involves six steps: data familiarization, code generation, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining themes, and writing up a description of themes. A researcher can look at both the semantic level which involves the surface meaning of what was said but also look at the latent level to interpret more implied meanings, assumptions, and ideologies (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Maguire & Delahunt, 2017).

In our study, we familiarized ourselves with the data by reading and re-reading the comments to look inductively for patterns that might help answer our central research questions: how did the audience react to this video, and how might this engagement be important for science communication? Using these questions as a guide, we first open coded our data, refining the codes as we went along, and we found three significant categories that addressed how the comments engaged with the video.

In response to the question, how did the audience react to this video?, we found that the comments did three things:

Thus, we labeled the first category “content-focused”, identifying and sub-coding three frequent themes that occurred in these messages, which - as the name suggests - demonstrated some connection to the actual content of the video, channel or the process of making this video. We labeled the second category “appreciation,” which illustrate a sense of appreciation or gratitude towards the video, Kurzgesagt team, or channel. All the comments we reviewed in this category could fit into one of three sub-codes: praise, thanks, or an extension of the conversation without praise or thanks. Finally, we labeled the third category “affect,” and this code described those comments that showed praiseful or thankful messages, a selection of videos went even further and expressed an emotional influence from Kurzgesagt to the viewer’s personal lives or career development for example.

Overall, the coding of comments are not mutually exclusive to only one category. For instance, some sub-codes could overlap, such as in the first content category; often one comment contained multiple themes like simplification or respect for the channel. The other codes could also overlap; every comment reflected somehow on content, and each comment could be categorized in their level of appreciation, and some of the same comments included discourses of affect. For our analysis and findings we separate the different emphases to draw attention to their significance and describe the findings in the results section.

We felt the answer to our second question, how might this engagement be important for science communication? involves looking at the connection between these three elements and is ultimately extrapolated in our discussion section.

We now elaborate the three different themes identified in our data: content-focused, appreciation, and affect. By paying particular attention to how these themes can help us better understand our aim of uncovering the engagement with the video, we see how science communication features in this process and show how we began to identify the long tail aspects of science communication more generally.

The first category of “video themes” helps explain what content that commenters focused on most. There were three significant sub-themes evident in our analysis: 1) simplification; 2) video process; and 3) channel engagement. The simplification category refers to comments that note simplicity in some way. The video process sub-code refers to comments that focused on how Kurzgesagt went about making their videos, be it in the visuals or the production process. Finally, the channel engagement sub-code brings to the forefront that many of the comments didn’t reference the theme or simplicity or science communication but instead addressed the channel’s value in the commenter’s life. To clarify where those themes occur exactly in the video, it is helpful to revisit the video a bit further.

First, regarding simplicity, the channel sets the foundation of the video that simplification is necessary for science communication, but they also add that some can view this simplification as a lie. They address this tension head on in the first sentence when they state, “Kurzgesagt is lying to you, in every video, even in this one” (:00-0:05). However, they then clarified and toned down their rhetoric of lying and move to “oversimplification” when they add a bit later, that by “lies” they mean “the concept of ‘lies to children’” (0:35), meaning that “on the path to explaining something complicated you start off with a little lie, a useful oversimplification, that makes it easier to grasp a concept” (0:35-0:45). Throughout the video, they frequently return to this discussion of simplification in comments like, “By beginning at a place of oversimplification you are building a framework, a foundation that you can then build upon and add nuance and complexity later on” (1:01-1:05), and “Simplifications like these are not just meant to dumb things down they are actually useful for experts themselves” (3:57-4:03).

Second, Kurzgesagt also touched on the theme of video process in the video when it made statements like, “Because our videos distill very complex subjects into flashy ten minute pieces and unfortunately, reality is, well, complicated” (0:07-0:14) and also added that to get to come to their conclusions, “we try to read as many primary sources as possible, talk to multiple experts and document our simplifications and give further reading in our sources doc” (6:20-6:30), thereby reiterating the labor involved in the production process.

Finally, the video addressed the channel when it clarified that because their aim in this video is transparency, they also wanted to sum up their whole purpose as a channel. They stated:

All of this brings us to the purpose of our videos. The most important thing we want to do with this channel is to inspire you and spark your curiosity for science and the amazing universe we live in. Learning often doesn’t feel like fun, but with the right story, it is one of the best things and we hope to provide that to you. Ultimately we hope that we light a fire in you that motivates you to read books, pay more attention at school or university and just get interested in a scientific field or two and learn more on your own. Not because you have to, but because you want to know more about how the world really works. Because the universe is beautiful and science is a way of seeing this beauty more clearly. And we hope that knowing that we have to simplify a bit does not make you enjoy our videos less. (7:30-8:19)

These three themes correspond directly to the comments in our sub-codes. First, regarding passages related to simplicity, a sample comment stated:

The simplified version itself is not easy to explain based on real facts of science. You guys are making the best quality videos. thank you for enlighting us with such a fun way to learn something new. [sic]

Second, comments coded in the video process category often noted either the visuals or the production steps. For instance, referencing the visuals, one commenter stated:

I wish someone would mention the plumbus at 4:51. Art inspiring art. In all seriousness, nobody does science communication like the team at Kurzgesagt, let alone how to communicate the art of science communication.

Regarding the production process, another commenter added:

…I imagine a lot goes on behind the scenes for each 10 minute video. Work at a place where a lot of work goes into creating a final simplified hopefully useful thing and It's not always obvious how much work, trial and error, actually went it's making. Much appreciation to you! [sic]

Finally, an example of the channel sub-code stated:

To be honest, this channel is one of a few that makes me interested in Science. If I found this channel when I'm in high school, probably I'm gonna pick a science for my primary study. Thanks for making this kind of videos, and please don't stop. [sic]

Overall, we find that this prevalence of the three sub-coded themes is significant for three individual reasons and one more holistic reason. First, for the sub-code of simplification, it is important to note that comments tended to focus on simplicity rather than lies despite the fact that “we lied to you” was a driving narrative in the piece. In fact, there were only five mentions of lies, and sixteen mentions of the rhetoric of the word simplification (e.g., simple, simplify, simply). When the theme of a lie was mentioned, it was not in an overtly negative way, and was instead more neutral. For instance, one comment noted, “Kurzgesagt : activates brutal honesty mode and exposes that it lied to us All of us : It's.....Acceptable.” This passage directly addresses Kurzgesagt’s admission or confession of lying, but it also notes that this seems like an acceptable practice. Whether or not the comment was using sarcasm or not is up to interpretation, but without interpretation, the comment is not overly making a negative statement. Further, the more frequent comments reflecting on simplicity were often positive. For instance, one comment noted, “Yes the tightrope between simple clarity and oversimplification is a balancing act all us edutubers are battling with. Thanks for articulating this Philipp and team!” In this comment, the commenter could have evoked or engaged with the word or concept of a “lie,” saying something like, “yes, there is a tightrope between lying and simplicity” but did not. Moreover, the commenter brings in a personal remark of appreciation by thanking Philipp, Kurzgesagt’s founder. So, these comments related to this code, often reflected positively on Kurzgesagt’s approach of simplicity and their ability to relate difficult concepts in an understandable way.

Second, that the comments also focused on the production process is important because this harkens back to more traditional recommendations for YouTubers in that quality videos with images and consistency are important to “success” on YouTube. As noted, previous literature has supported clear messages, a good production process and visuals, and consistent publication of science communication with an established brand (van der Schelde, Tulin, and Lee 2021).

Finally, we found the focus on the channel a significant point because it was the largest focus of the comments. Like Kurzgesagt’s own confessional about the process of science communication, thirty-eight of the fifty comments on the video were directed in some way towards discussing the channel, often describing not just how the commenters liked the video, but how much they like the channel and all of Kurzgesagt’s work. When Kurzgesagt professed its own hopes and purposes for the videos, the commenters returned with their own confessionals about their engagement with the channel as a whole. That is a notable result, as a typical confessional video on YouTube does not spur these responses, nor does this video contain a call-to-action to elicit such responses. This reveals a potentially underlying assumption of how positively attuned this audience is towards an honest, or ‘backstage’ look into science communication.

More holistically, each of these three themes was addressed in the video, so it is not a surprise that they were thematically part of many of the comments. However, we find them important to draw attention to because they are indicative of the effect they have on their audience and how they understand this video’s message.

Second, we found that in their comments, viewers actively appreciated the video, calling this second category “appreciation.” We built on the analysis of the content-focused section to identify the prominent ways that the comments reacted: with an expression of praise, thanks, or an extension of the conversation without praise or thanks. While praise and thanks were prominent reactions, some comments were more neutral with a response that was not overtly complementary. These often paraphrased or directly quoted the video or did not include enough information to indicate whether something was positive or negative.

Based on our coding, we found that forty-two of the fifty comments either praised or thanked the video or the channel team, with the remainder more neutral. To get a better sense of the coding, an excerpt of a comment categorized as “praise” stated, “...Kurzgesagt: Makes mistakes Also kurzgesagt: sorry we lied You guys are great, even though I'm not gonna get a science degree, your videos are always entertaining to learn.” This comment more explicitly lauded that the channel was “great” and “entertaining.” Alternatively, an excerpt of a comment coded as “thanks,” ends with the statement, “...thank you for enlighting [sic] us with such a fun way to learn something new” and directly expresses gratitude towards the channel - almost as if they were thanking an actual person. Finally, a more neutral comment stated, “Science is not the truth. Science is finding the truth. When science changes its opinion, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.” Here, more interpretative information was not added in the comment.

We argue that this prevalence of comments offering praise and thanks was a significant pattern because it indicated how commenters received the video, and in this case, it was overwhelmingly positive - demonstrating a sense of appreciation or even gratitude. This video in particular, too, is potentially situated in an even more vulnerable space for criticism because its premise is set on a controversial stance of critiquing itself - showcasing a deep sense of self-reflection too, other YouTubers, and even all of science communication. With the video’s thumbnail declaring, “We lied to you” and the video titled, “…And We’ll Do It Again,” Kurzgesagt’s simplification of the topics and necessary omissions has content that “lies” to its viewers. While those familiar with a concept like framing, where journalists “choose the elements of a situation that best convey the gist of an event or problem....and they decide how to present the story in an appealing and comprehensible fashion”(Moy, Tewksbury, and Rinke, 2016, p. 7) may understand the premise’s nuances more deeply, anyone not trained in journalistic practices or those already skeptical of the media could have a more negative response towards Kurzgesagt lying to them. Some researchers have even challenged this framing approach in science communication, noting that we need to pay more attention to the way the stories are simplified and told (Medvecky & Leach, 2019). However, the presence of support for the positive comments in the comments through praise or thanks indicates to us that the audiences supported this honesty and transparency and were subsequently motivated to praise and thank the channels’ efforts.

Third, viewers relayed some form of an emotional or affective response by the viewers, leading to the next category “affect.” Twenty-nine of the fifty comments indicated how the channel had moved the commenter emotionally or on a more personal level. This includes comments such as “inspired,” and sentences like “i feel more motivated,” “I feel so happy,” “it’s [sic] been a joy to be entertained,” “I get extremely moved at the end of your videos,” “this channel was pioneer to spark the love of science,” or “...it makes me feel like perhaps I'm not the insignificant speck…” For instance, we see in the comment, “I've downloaded tons of your videos to watch with my 3 brothers and they understand it because it's simple and educational, we love it for that.. We hope you keep making videos” an expression of love and an indication that the video created an emotional response in the commenter.

With even more depth for this category, though, is that there was a number of comments that not only referenced an affective response, but there was also an additional subset of lengthier comments that indicated a deeper level of affect. These remarks were more personal and included details of the commenter’s own discovery of science and how the channel played a larger role in their life, even motivating life changes. To see this, we illustrate with four examples, each offering more intense examples of the channel’s impact. For a first example, one comment noted how the writer was in expectation of each video and that the channel had lit up their life:

Thank you folks for such beautiful videos! I'm so glad I stumbled across your channel years ago. I'm on the edge of my seat all the time for your next video. Your merch certainly does brighten the world! My girlfriend and I were lucky enough to get quite a few of your posters as gifts this holiday, and we couldn't be happy with their quality and spectacular designs. Thanks again, and happy 2022!!

This comment illustrated attention to the Kurzgesagt channel as well as it revealed personal details about the commenter that they received channel merchandise as gifts and articulates how the channel motives the commenter to await new videos and embrace the merchandise.

A second and even more personal example of this deep affect is the comment that stated:

“I'm an Engineering student and you ABSOLUTELY have inspired me further in STEM. Best channel on youtube, I wish your videos went longer. Brilliant team of people. Respect.”

In this example, in addition to expressing affect, the comment reveals personal details about the commenter and their schooling, noting the importance of the channel and it’s description as the best YouTube channel, and even suggests how the channel has influenced their lifestyle to inspire them further into STEM.

For an even more revealing answer, another example of this emotional connection can be found in this comment that states:

“i was in med school when i started watching this amazing channel. im now a first year doctor and all i can say it's been a joy to be entertained with oversimplifications of complex information that ties neatly in such a gorgeously illustrated narrative. this channel has sparked back my interest in learning about space, an area i long gave up in undergrad when i realized i was miserable learning all the math in physics! (cardiovascular physiology is enough for me, thanks) so thank you for your videos helping reach others and helping them become excited about science again” [sic].

Remarkably, this is an expression of long-term engagement with Kurzgesagt’s work and linked to a personal connection or step in their personal development regarding their career (choices). This post indicates affective joy, the personal details of being a doctor, an attention towards the channel, and a lifestyle change where the commenter is now interested in learning about space again. Self-described, this person wanted to study space, or had an interest in it, yet decided to (as a further reveal in the comment) study cardiovascular physiology and train to be a doctor. Nevertheless, due to Kurzgesagt’s work they can still follow their passion and learn about it through these simplified videos.

Finally, one comment can be seen as an emblematic example to show how science communication can have a long-term impact. :

I have been subscribing with Kurzgesagt since 2015! Trust me, this channel was pioneer to spark the love for science esp cosmology. Your valuable content eventually helped me to dive further in depth of the subject whether the subject be astrophysics or some other one. Due to you guys, I got to learn more and more about humans and about the book called Sapiens as well. I am an undergraduate student who is pursuing BSc from distant learning and that's why self-study is all I can rely on. Since, most of the straight science often seems overwhelming when maths and graphs comes in; your channel taught me that both science and Universe are really beautiful and science helps human to explore Universe's truest beauty via venturing with laws and theories. Thank you to entire Kurzgesagt team members. [sic]

As a viewer since 2015, the comment notes how influential the channel has been in not only motivating the commenter to start their study, but has kept them going in their pursuit of information and understanding of science. The prevalence of such comments being afforded a top level response indicates how important affect is as the comments go beyond praise and thanks by further expressing how the work moved the viewer.

Overall, these comments allow us to see a bit more of who is watching the channel and why they feel this level of connection with the video or channel itself. They highlight the long-term potentials of science communication as an expression of how their lives have been changed because of the Kurzgesagt channel and its content.

Drawing together the three themes and their various sub-themes, our results can answer both guiding research questions. 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.

More explicitly, and perhaps more interestingly, the question of how this video and its engagement might be important 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 the 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 how the comments not only praised this video, but how the channel more generally can be seen as changing life trajectories. 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 to not only think about immediate production and reception, but 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 a 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 that watched not just this one video, but 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 Medvecky & Leach (2019) note, 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.

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.

This study demonstrates not only how science communication could be communicated effectively via a social media platform, but also the significant role of the lasting impact of science communication on its audience. Through Kurzgesagt’s confessional video, the comments make clear that science communication has the potential to not just inform and educate viewers on one topic on one occasion, science communicators have the potential to influence a subset of viewers longer term. This work supports the need for simplicity, good production quality, and channel consistency for science communication. However, the results also show that we should think about the long-term impact of what is produced through science communication. Doing so will help us think about the messages we make and our potential roles in changing the lives of those around us. These findings are a stepping stone for more research, requiring more exploration into the presence of “long tailers” in other science communication channels. This profile is clearly present in relation to Kurzgesagt channel, but the question is when or where others might be equally exposed and inspired by science communication.

When focused on the long tail, this moves beyond metrics and sharing through which YouTube channels or videos tend to be solely evaluated. Thinking about the long tail on YouTube also becomes an alternative orientation to the how-to notions of science communication, requiring, as an ethical exercise, that we can think about our long term impacts rather than getting this message out as quickly and broadly as possible. As Medvecky & Leach (2019) remind, “In the case of communication ethics, the concern is not simply ‘how do we do (morally) good communication’ but also, how do we use communication to create more good in the world” (p. 10). If we can change lives, we are doing a part to create more good in the world, a good that extends beyond a more limited, single-serve, viewer and subscriber count end for science communication.

1. Anderson, C. (2004 Oct. 1). The long tail. Wired. https://www.wired.com/2004/10/tail/
2. Birch, H. (2011). The social web in science communication. In D. J. Bennett & R. C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication: Telling it like it is (pp. 280–293). Cambridge University Press.
3. Borghol, Y., Ardon, S., Carlsson, N., Eager, D., & Mahanti, A. (2012). The untold story of the clones: Content-agnostic factors that impact YouTube video popularity. Paper presented at the 18th ACM SIGKDD conference, Beijing, China. Available at: http://www.ida.liu.se/~nikca/papers/kdd12.pdf
4. Boy, B., Bucher, H-J., Christ, K. (2020). Audiovisual science communication on TV and YouTube. How recipients understand and evaluate science videos. Frontiers in Communication 5, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.608620
5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications.
7. Cavanah, S., Owens, S., Kemink, K., Riley, C., Kim, S., Lee, J., & Ellis-Felege, S. (2023). Birds of feather flock together: A longitudinal study of a social media outreach effort. Biological Conservation, 281https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109999
8. Debove, S., Füchslin, T., Louis, T. & Masselot, P. (2021). French science communication on YouTube: A survey of individual and institutional communicators and their channel characteristics. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.612667
9. Fähnrich, B. (2021). Conceptualizing science communication in flux — a framework for analyzing science communication in a digital media environment. Journal of Science Communication 20(03), Y02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20030402
10. Grant, L. (2011). Evaluating success: how to find out what worked (and what didn’t). In D. J. Bennett & R. C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication: Telling it like it is (pp. 403–422). Cambridge University Press.
11. Hutchins, J.A. (2020). Tailoring scientific communications for audience and research narrative. Current Protocols: Essential Laboratory Techniques, 20(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpet.40
12. Kjærgaard, R. S. (2011). Things to see and do: how scientific images work. In D. J. Bennett & R. C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication: Telling it like it is (pp. 332–354). Cambridge University Press.
13. Len-Rios, M. E., Bhandari, M., & Medvedeva, Y. S. (2014). Deliberation of the scientific evidence for breastfeeding: Online comments as social representations. Science Communication, 36(6), 778–801.
14. Longnecker, N. (2023). Good science communication considers the audience. In S. Rowland. & L. Kuchel (Eds.) Teaching science students to communicate: A practical guide (pp. 21-30). Springer.
15. Maguire, M. & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, 9(3), 3351-33514. https://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/335/553
16. Medvecky, F. & Leach, J. (2019). An ethics of science communication. Palgrave Pivot. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-32116-1
17. Moy, P., Tewksbury, D., Rinke, E.M. (2016). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing. In K.B. Jensen, E.W. Rothenbuhler, J.D. Pooley and R.T. Craig (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of communication theory and philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect266
18. Munoz Morcillo, J., Czurda, K. and Robertson-von Trotha, C. Y. (2016). Typologies of the popular science web video. Journal of Science Communication, 15(04), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15040202
19. Nordmann, A. (2011). The ethos of science vs. ethics of science communication: on deficit and surplus models of science–society interaction. In D. J. Bennett, & R. C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication telling it like it is (pp. 101-117). Cambridge University Press.
20. Pridmore, J. and Tulin, M. (2021). Communicating trustworthy information in the digital world [MOOC]. Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/learn/communicating-trustworthy-information-in-the-digital-world
21. Rogers, R. (2019). Doing digital methods. SAGE Publications.
22. Rowland, S. & Kuchel, L. (Eds.) (2023). Teaching science students to communicate: A practical guide. Springer.
23. van der Sanden, MCA., & Osseweijer, P. (2011). Effectively embedding corporate science communication in academia; a second paradigm shift? In D. J. Bennett, & R. C. Jennings (Eds.), Successful science communication telling it like it is (pp. 423-442). Cambridge University.
24. van der Schelde, A., Tulin, M. and Lee, J. (2021). White paper on best practices for producing science communication videos. European Commission - TRESCA. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5d8bcce87&appId=PPGMS
25. Trustworthy, Reliable and Engaging Scientific Communication Approaches. (2023, 12 September).Deliverables. CORDIS. https://doi.org/10.3030/872855
26. Tyden, T. (1996). The contribution of longitudinal studies for understanding science communication and research utilization. Science Communication, 18(1), 29-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547096018001002
27. Velho, R. M., Mendes, A. M. F., and Azevedo, C. L. N. (2020). Communicating science with YouTube videos: How nine factors relate to and affect video views. Frontiers in Communication, 5(72), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.567606
28. Welbourne, D. J., & Grant, W. J. (2015). Science communication on YouTube: Factors that affect channel and video popularity. Public Understanding of Science, 25(6), 706–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515572068