The technical barriers to producing video have collapsed over the past two decades. Anyone with a smartphone can produce video. Editing software runs on consumer hardware. Distribution platforms reach global audiences without intermediation. The democratization of production tools has been substantial.
This technical democratization was supposed to produce a flowering of educational image. It did produce enormous quantities of educational video. It did not produce a flowering of quality.
I want to think through why, and what it means for the future of educational image.
What was supposed to happen
The narrative around democratized video production was that traditional gatekeepers (broadcasters, educational publishers, film schools) had limited what kind of educational video could be produced. Removing the gatekeepers would unleash creative and educational potential that had been suppressed.
The expectation was that educational video would become better, more diverse, more creative, more responsive to audience needs. The broader access would produce broader quality.
Two decades into this experiment, the prediction has been only partially borne out.
What actually happened
The actual outcome has been mixed in specific ways:
Volume has increased dramatically. The quantity of educational video produced and distributed has grown by orders of magnitude.
Diversity of subjects has increased. Educational video now exists for subjects that traditional educational publishers would never have addressed. Niche interests have substantial educational video coverage.
Voice diversity has increased. A broader range of producers create educational video than was possible under traditional gatekeeping.
Average quality has substantially decreased. The flood of low-quality video has overwhelmed the limited high-quality output. Most educational video being produced now is genuinely mediocre.
The infrastructure for quality has eroded. Traditional educational media producers have largely shrunk or disappeared. The institutional structures that supported quality educational media have weakened.
Discovery of quality has become harder. The volume of mediocre output makes finding quality work harder than during the gatekeeping era.
The democratization produced volume and diversity at the cost of average quality and discoverability.
Why quality declined despite better tools
Several factors explain why technical democratization did not produce quality democratization:
Economic pressure on production budgets. When anyone can produce video, the value of any specific video production decreases. Production budgets have collapsed alongside the supply expansion.
Algorithmic distribution rewarding engagement over quality. The platforms that distribute educational video reward engagement metrics that often correlate with low-quality content. Sensationalism, controversy, and personality outperform substantive educational quality in algorithmic distribution.
Production speed pressure. Platform economics reward producers who release content frequently. Frequent release is incompatible with the production timelines that quality educational media requires.
Erosion of specialty expertise. The traditional educational media producers had accumulated expertise in production craft. The dispersal of production has dispersed expertise without producing equivalent capability accumulation in new producers.
Audience patterns rewarding shallow content. Audiences that have learned to consume content quickly produce demand for content that can be consumed quickly. The reinforcing cycle produces progressively shallower educational content.
The combination of these factors has produced an educational video ecosystem that the original democratization narrative did not anticipate.
What this means for the future
Several plausible trajectories for educational image in the coming decades:
Continued volume expansion with continued quality erosion. The current trends could continue. The result would be even more educational video of progressively lower average quality.
Algorithm-driven concentration in entertainment-style educational content. The trend toward personality-driven, entertainment-formatted educational video could continue, marginalizing more substantive forms.
Bifurcation between popular and specialty quality work. Specialty markets (medical education, professional training, academic subjects) could maintain quality production while popular educational video continues to degrade.
Institutional renewal supporting quality production. New institutions could emerge to support quality educational media production. Cooperative models, subscription-supported production, public investment in educational media — various models could potentially renew quality production.
Audience demand for quality could regenerate. Saturation with mediocre educational video could produce audience demand for higher quality alternatives that supports renewed quality production.
Multiple trajectories are plausible. The actual future will depend on choices being made now by producers, audiences, platforms, and institutions.
What individual practitioners can do
For individual practitioners interested in quality educational media production:
Maintain craft commitment despite market pressure. The market does not currently reward quality production proportionate to its production cost. Maintaining quality requires accepting reduced economic returns relative to mediocre output.
Find audiences that value quality. Specialty audiences and engaged audiences typically value quality more than algorithmically-served general audiences. Direct audience relationships can support quality production better than platform-mediated audiences.
Build sustainable economic models for quality work. Subscription models, direct support from engaged audiences, institutional partnerships — various models can support quality production outside the mainstream platform economy.
Invest in subject matter expertise. Deep expertise in specific subjects produces educational video that surface coverage cannot match. The investment in expertise pays back through differentiated quality.
Build long-term audience relationships. Audiences who follow specific producers across time develop trust that enables substantive engagement with content.
None of these alone solves the systemic problems. Together they support the production conditions for quality work.
What audiences can do
For audiences who care about quality educational media:
- Be selective about what educational content to watch
- Support quality producers through subscriptions and engagement
- Resist algorithm-recommended content in favor of deliberately chosen content
- Engage with longer-form work that requires sustained attention
- Recommend quality work to others rather than viral mediocre work
- Develop critical evaluation skills for educational media
Audience choices substantially affect what gets produced. Demand for quality supports quality production; passive consumption of whatever platforms recommend supports the current trends.
What institutions could do
For institutions interested in supporting quality educational media:
- Public media institutions need continued investment to maintain quality production capability
- Educational institutions could integrate quality educational media production into their work
- Specialty professional organizations could support educational media production for their fields
- Funders interested in education could support quality production rather than just access initiatives
- Platforms could take responsibility for the educational quality of content they distribute
Institutional renewal of educational media support is possible but requires deliberate investment that is not currently happening at scale.
A closing observation
The democratization of video production was supposed to be straightforwardly good for educational media. The actual outcome is more complicated. Quantity and access have improved substantially. Average quality has substantially declined. The institutional infrastructure that supported quality production has eroded.
The trajectory is not predetermined. Different choices by producers, audiences, and institutions could produce different outcomes. The current trend toward continued quality erosion is one possible future but not the only one.
The opportunity for those who care about educational image is to support the conditions for quality production. The opportunity for practitioners is to maintain craft commitment despite market pressures. The opportunity for audiences is to demand and support quality work.
The medium continues to be capable of substantial educational achievement. The question is whether enough people will commit to the work and conditions required to actually produce that achievement at scale.
The future of educational image will be shaped by these choices.
