Why polished production works badly here
People come here to watch videos made by people, not by brands. Anything that signals a production budget, professional lighting, a perfect frame or a commercial voice-over triggers an immediate avoidance reflex. The gesture is learned, it takes no thought.
This is not praise for amateurism: the video has to be sharp, audible, and say something. It is an observation about the context in which it is seen. The budget consequence is rather good news: the money is better spent on the number of attempts than on the care given to each.
A rhythm, not a campaign
Formats wear out faster here than elsewhere and what worked six months ago no longer does. The question is not to find the right video, it is to establish a rhythm that allows regular testing.
Measurement is trickier here
The typical journey is not a click followed by a purchase. It is a video watched on the commute, a name remembered, and a search made that evening from another device. To a measurement tool, that sale comes from a search engine, or from nowhere.
The direct return shown therefore almost always understates the real effect. That said, you must not comfort yourself with that argument, which conveniently justifies any spend: the check is to watch what moves elsewhere when you switch on and when you switch off.
When we advise against it
When nothing can be shown. When nobody wants to appear. When the buying decision is long and collective. In those three cases, an entertainment platform watched on the commute is not the right place, and we point elsewhere.
