How long should I spend making a science video?

A common question for teams starting to create a video series, or starting to build a production team, is how long to reasonably expect each piece of content creation to take. Obviously, that’s an impossible question, because it entirely depends on what you’re making and who’s doing the making, but having some sort of yardstick is useful, so I asked some of the people who make the internet’s finest science content how long they spend on each piece.

There’s an important distinction to make between how quickly something can be done once, or at a push, and how quickly it can be done on a consistent basis without standards (not to mention the welfare/sanity of the producers) starting to slip. I talk about the tradeoff between quality and quantity, and finding a release schedule that works for you, here, and it’s important not to read too much into any of the times below — so much varies on the resources available, other commitments, style of work etc, and these were very rough estimates. I considered omitting this section altogether because I’d rather encourage you to focus on what you’re doing and getting it right to your own standard, not just worry how long it’s taking, but some sense of perspective is hard to come by if you’re new and working in a relatively isolated role.

So take all of this with a pinch of salt. The key message is that quality content takes time, and try to think sustainably, not just ‘how much can we possibly get in as short a time as possible’. As with all of these posts, I owe huge thanks to everyone for being so open about their process — it’s not always easy sharing the behind-the-scenes info:

Me!

It’s only fair to start with my own process. This video from my Royal Institution days is a little over a week of solid work in total, split between two people: about 2 days of research and writing (say 1 day each), half a day to film, then 3–4 days cutting the footage together and doing the animations (the most time-consuming part for me). The filming and basic edit is quick because we were working to a format and setup that was already established. And while this took over a week, other episodes in the series which took a different approach (shorter answers to a handful of questions instead of one long one, no animation, and a much more efficient editor than me), took considerably less time, with filming and editing pretty much possible all in one day, if you’re snappy about it and have your script ready beforehand.

Anna Rothschild — Gross Science

I spoke to Anna Rothschild in Washington just after she’d started a new role at the Washington Post (watch that space for some exciting sounding video projects from Anna), but I knew her from Gross Science — her excellent NOVA/PBS digital channel. Her videos are generally 3–6 minutes and feature a mix of pieces to camera and characterful animated segments. As with everyone, she said the time taken varies wildly, but on average took about a week and half to produce, including 3–4 days of research and writing (almost always including talking to at least one researcher — the videos have an integrity and depth that’s not always present in science videos aimed at a younger audience, and she was sure to take the time to keep that standard up).

Side note: A common question for people starting out is ‘do I need any particular production skills training or a degree?’. The vast majority of people I spoke to, including Anna, said they are largely self-taught through experimenting, online learning, and learning from others around them. So don’t let a lack of formal animation/design/filming training hold you back. Get stuck in, and learn from those around you.

Samantha Yammine

It’s not just videos that need time and consideration. For Samantha Yammine, a single instagram post can take a few hours, plus about an hour of engagement, responding to comments and analysing what’s working and what’s not. That might seem like a lot, but often there’s a huge amount of carefully crafted science content in her posts, and that takes time to get right. Samantha also has nice ways of assessing her posts’ success, see the section on social media metrics for more.

Vox

Vox’s explainers are some of the very best out there. They’re carefully written, and the attention to detail in the choice of visuals and sound design lend them a really consistent quality. So how long do they take? It varies, of course, but something like two weeks, according to a senior producer Joss Fong. Roughly half of that is on research and writing. Some videos are worked on as a team, but lots, especially their earlier films, come from just one person — Joss says that helps give a strong identity to each film. They do have the luxury of access to sound and video libraries, as well as a recording setup, which might slow you down if you’re working for a budget-strapped charity/museum.

Adam Cole — Skunk Bear

This channel is another personal favourite. How long does it take Adam Cole to put together one of his films? Note that this channel’s release schedule is nothing like that of Vox, or other more consistent YouTube channels. For the first series of ‘Good Question’, it was roughly one video in 3 weeks, from a two person team. They’ve experimented with getting out a regular series with videos every other week, but didn’t like the effect on quality or audience figures.

Research 2 Reality

The Research 2 Reality series from Molly Schoichet and the University of Toronto shows a much more streamlined process — interviews are shot in a couple of hours at most, and edited together in about half a day. It’s a very different type of video to the other mentioned so far, but is a nice example what can be achieved on a much tighter time frame.

ACS Reactions

I spoke to Elaine Seward, one of the animators for ACS Reactions, and Chris McCarthy ,who looks after social media for ACS, about what goes into each film. There’s a team of 7 or 8 people contributing to the series (not all exclusively, though), including producers, managers and writers. They plan to a two-month schedule, with each video being produced throughout that time, allowing about a month in total for it to be written, read at a ‘table read’ (this was the only time I heard this idea mentioned, but it sounds well worth building into your process if you can), approved by an external chemist, and then 2–3 weeks with the producer working on the animation, with a final week for edits. This extended time scale allows flexibility and breathing room to shift plans where needed and adapt — it’s a workflow that lots would be jealous of!

Shelf life

These are beautifully crafted films from the American Museum of Natural History. The team there produce content of all different shapes and sizes, but Erin Chapman, who produces Shelf Life, says the time taken over this particular series has paid off in terms of reach, views, and media coverage. The first series was released on a monthly basis, but they already had 4 made when they started releasing. In practise, they take over a month each, with archive research, extensive interviews, editing, animation storyboards and a very rigorous scientific review. That all takes time (and hence money!)

Daily Planet

Just for some perspective, albeit from a very different world, the team at Daily Planet are producing 50 minutes of TV science content every day! It takes a team of 20–30, plus crew, editing support and more (and conversely doesn’t leave much time and scope for online video!), but does put that tweet you just spent two hours on into context.

Crash Course

Crash Course is a behemoth of online science video. They release 5 videos a week across dozens of series. Six years and 800+ episodes in, the team at Thought Cafe have got the workflow down to a fine art, with lots of the animation process now automated. Jonathon Corbiere (co-founder and creative director) said they spend roughly two weeks on each episode (3 people working on different aspects for a little under a week each, with management, coordination etc), and that’s on top of the writing and production that happens before it reaches them.

TED-Ed

Talking at the Sci-Vi conference, Gerta Xhelo discussed how TED-Ed often allow for a very long production timetable, with some videos taking months to complete. They give the artists and communicators involved plenty of creative freedom, and a very flexible timetable, as they are often working on the videos around other (more lucrative) projects. This keeps costs down and makes their videos an attractive prospect to the talent.

As I warned at the start, you need to find your own rhythm, and give your work the time it needs to get to the right standard. Factor in a margin of error of about 100% for all of the above estimates. Most of the examples here have been making their videos for years and trimmed the fat off the process as they go, or consciously allow more time to let their content develop. What about you? Do you have any time-saving pearls of wisdom? Add your thoughts in the comments below.

This post forms part of the publication, ‘Communicating Science with Social Media’, which is the product of a 2017 Winston Churchill Fellowship. Read more about the project here, and for more about me, including examples of my own work, visit anthony-lewis.com.