I’ve made a board pack for SciFact.
The board currently consists of me, my wife and our one-year-old. Governance is still developing.
But there’s something quite exciting about having enough to put in a board pack. A week ago, this was a creative idea I wanted to get out of my head. Now there are videos, viewers, comments and actual things to discuss.
When I launched SciFact, the fanfare was confined to my own office. This week, people outside it started responding.
That feels super good!!!
Oh. People are watching.
The first report adds up to just over 51,000 views across YouTube, Instagram and TikTok, with YouTube accounting for nearly 30,000.
Those are views, rather than 51,000 different people. The reporting windows also differ slightly: YouTube’s figures run to 4 October, while Instagram and TikTok run to the morning of 7 October. This is a snapshot of the launch, with all the untidiness that comes with it.
Still. Fifty-one thousand is kind of wild for me. And I know it’s not 10 million subscribers, and Saturday Night Live isn’t going to ask me to host any time soon… but, week one!!
I know enough about marketing to understand why I shouldn’t get carried away with a view count. I’m also the person who made the thing, and I’m quite happy to admit that seeing the numbers move gives me a little dopamine hit.
We should probably make a video about what dopamine is. For research purposes, obviously.
Then somebody comments, and there’s another little hit. Someone has watched, thought about it and bothered to respond.
The best part is when they ask a question.
The audience has started joining in
SciFact is built around simple questions about everyday things. A soft, playful way into a subject you might otherwise never think about.
Why does popcorn pop? How do submarines sink and float? Why are bubbles round?
Now some of those questions are coming from viewers.
Five have already become videos, including why oily puddles have rainbows, how vinyl records hold music and how car air conditioning works.
I love that.
Someone’s curiosity has become the starting point for something I make. The next video can answer them, while also opening the subject up to everyone else.
There’s a lovely connection there with the original idea for SciFact: make a concept feel approachable enough that someone wants to come closer. A friendly face on a modem was one way into that. A question in the comments is another.
That’s the kind of response I want to pay attention to.
The slide I’m arguing with
The board pack ends with recommendations from my “team”, Al and Inca. Or is that Sal and Inca now, after Donald Trump’s meeting at the White House? Haha.
Some videos attracted more attention than others. Hair and body myths did well. Kitchen questions and everyday physics showed promise. Sharing was low. TikTok went very quiet.
There are sensible suggestions attached to those observations: make more of certain topics, sharpen the opening, give people a reason to share, reduce the posting frequency.
And this is where I start arguing with my own presentation. But for me, this is what #buildInPublic should be about: showing the workings, the successes and the failures.
A week of results can suggest a direction worth exploring. It can’t tell me everything about why something worked, or whether doing more of it will make SciFact better.
A video about hats and baldness travelled across all three platforms. Does that mean people particularly like body myths? Was the question unusually tempting? Did the opening work well? Did it simply get a better opportunity to be seen?
I don’t know!
“Make more of these” is a reasonable experiment. It becomes much less reasonable if I quietly turn it into “this is what the channel must now be”.
This thing is my (other) baby. I’m excited about what it could become, and I care about the character it’s developing. I’m not going to change that character every time a chart points somewhere interesting.
I’ve heard “led by the data” before
In previous roles, I worked with people who would say things like “we’ll be led by the data” or “the strategy is based on data”.
It frustrated me.
Data matters. Of course it does. But strategy and creative direction need to be led by insight.
You can use data to support loads of different arguments. Choose a different metric, a different time period or a different comparison, and you can find another apparently convincing story.
The hard work is understanding what the evidence means.
For example, SciFact was conceived for teens. In this first YouTube report, 21.5% of measured viewers were aged 13–17, while 51.6% were aged 25–44. Those age figures cover signed-in viewers, so they’re only part of the picture.
Are adults enjoying the same accessible explanations I intended for teenagers? Is the playful approach working across ages? Or is there something else drawing them in?
Those questions matter because a larger adult audience doesn’t automatically require a different creative direction. It might mean the original direction has wider appeal than I expected.
That’s an interpretation to investigate. Changing the brief is a decision.
Common wisdom needs a question mark too
There’s plenty of advice about growing a channel. Sharper hooks. More calls to action. Fewer posts. More posts. Follow the format that’s working.
Some of it will be useful.
But if we all follow the same advice, we’ll all end up making versions of the same thing.
Take sharing. The report records 61 shares across those 51,026 views and recommends ending every Short with a reason to send it to someone.
I can see the logic. I also want to know what that would feel like in the video.
Would it add something playful and relevant? Would someone think, “My mate would enjoy that”? Or would I be bolting a marketing instruction onto a satisfying little explanation?
The execution matters. So does knowing when to leave it alone.
TikTok’s sudden drop deserves investigation too. Trying a slower publishing pace seems sensible. But the figures alone don’t prove that posting frequently caused the drop.
I want to test an idea and understand what happens. That gives me something useful to learn from.
This is what building in public looks like
There were 215 posts across the three platforms in the launch report. That includes the same videos appearing in different places; it isn’t 215 separate films.
There were corrections too: three YouTube Shorts were replaced with corrected uploads. On one, a viewer commented that the plane was moonwalking because the plane sprite was going backwards in the video. Red-faced moment. But we fixed it, told the viewer and thanked them for letting us know.
I want those details in the open alongside the pleasing numbers. And I want to share the decisions while I’m still thinking about them, when there’s something for other people to question or contribute to.
So week two will involve making, listening and trying a few things. Some suggestions from the board pack may earn their place. Others may need more thought.
I’m delighted people are watching. I’m even more delighted they’re asking questions.
Now I want to understand what’s connecting with them, and use that insight to make something I’m proud of.
You can watch SciFact on YouTube. And if you’re building something yourself—or have thoughts on any of this—come and find me on LinkedIn or X. I’d love to compare notes.