Category: Zen and the Art of YouTube

  • Social Media Monthly Report – October 2025

    Social Media Monthly Report – October 2025

    In September, I spent 34 hours and released nothing. October increased to 41 hours and produced a single episode — progress, but not momentum.

    This is the third Social Media Monthly Report — part of an ongoing effort to show what it takes to build a creative media business from the ground up. The goal isn’t performance; it’s documentation. What works, what doesn’t, and how much time disappears between the two.


    October was a slow grind back toward momentum — progress measured mostly in wasted hours.

    Executive Summary

    October’s target was straightforward:

    • Publish 4 videos.
    • Invest ~40 hours, with post-production under 50%. 

    The aim was to hold a steady output before adding specific targets for views, watch time, or subscribers. Instead, I tried to rebuild the lost momentum from the previous month with limited results. Being away from the camera for so long resulted in wasted production efforts. Some shoots were too poor to use, leading to repeated work that could have been avoided if I weren’t so rusty. Inconsistency remains the major factor plaguing the channel.

    Here is the month in numbers.

    Key Metrics


    SEPOCTChange
    Impressions2,3538,547+6,194
    Views138448+410
    Click-through Rate (CTR)3.8%3.6%-0.2 pp
    Total Watch Time (Hours)7.426.6+19.2
    Subscribers175182+7

    A single upload this month, compared to none last month, naturally increased impressions — no surprise there. Views and watch hours remain low, and CTR held steady; the problem is still output, not packaging. 

    Production Breakdown


    SEP (Hours)SEP (%)OCT (Hours)OCT (%)
    Pre-Production13.0039%8.0020%
    Production3.009%12.5030%
    Post-Production7.2521%10.7526%
    Publishing00%0.251%
    Marketing4.6714%1.504%
    Other5.7517%8.0020%
    Total33.67100%41.00100%

    Of the 41 hours, 20% went into production—mostly shooting and reshooting the same two episodes. One episode was successfully released and the second is in the final stages of post-production — with ~4 hours of work needed for release. Video editing accounted for about 10% of the time; the drop in post-production hours happened because the second video is still not finished, not because editing got faster.

    The failed production sessions caused frustration, broke momentum, and led to mundane admin work that didn’t move the channel. Given that pattern, here’s what has to change.

    After-Action Notes

    Continuing to claw back momentum remains the priority. The main bottleneck is spillage—production waste, the time invested that never turns into a finished episode. Every input hour must move something forward. With a one-man schedule, there’s little margin for inefficiency; progress depends on focus, not volume.

    Next Month (November 2025)

    The goals are simple:

    • Publish 4 videos.
    • Invest ~40 hours, with post-production under 50%.
    • Minimal waste: Under 5% of time invested in other tasks. Zero spillage in production hours.

    The aim is still to hold this output steady for the next six months before adding specific targets for views, watch time, or subscribers. The key is consistency and regaining momentum.

    Closing

    This is the cost of doing the work — measured in hours, not hype. October was about regaining motion through waste; November is about keeping motion while cutting the waste down. One month, one set of numbers, one small step towards consistent rhythm.

    For those who prefer the full data in one go, I’ve pulled the charts into a short deck. The “boardroom version” of this report — 45 seconds, numbers only.

    This is the third in a monthly series. The next Social Media Monthly Report will follow in December (after month-end). If you want to keep track of how the numbers move, subscribe.

  • 279,339 Impressions, 151 Views — The Anatomy of an Algorithmic Misfire

    Video #21 was just another weekly video in my YouTube photography channel. Within a few days I watched in disbelief as the number of impressions reached 279,339. The algorithm was pushing my videos! My disbelief quickly turned to dismay as the click-through-rate hovered around 0%. 109 views from almost 280,000 impressions! The algorithm must be broken.

    The Spike That Made No Sense

    It made no sense. A single video, similar in structure to the 20 preceding it, yet 279,339 impression out of 290,369 impression for the entire channel. 280,000 views that drove a little over 100 views to the channel.

    I was trying to remain calm. I uploaded 20 videos, some got less than 10 views, my subscriber base hovered at 6 for months. The algorithm finally pays attention to my work and all I get is 100 views? 

    My anger quickly turned to curiosity. Something doesn’t add up. This has to be some kind of algorithmic misfire. Something is not aligned properly under the hood. Either my content is unbelievably bad (a possibility) or YouTube’s engine is sending my video to the wrong audience. 

    Time to pop the hood and take a closer look.

    Under the Bonnet

    Time to inspect everything carefully and meticulously. A full diagnosis. Even though the channel was small and new there should be enough data to provide some clear insights. 

    Here are the full stats from YouTube’s analytics; everything visible under the hood:

    Impressions279,339
    Total Views151
    Views from Impressions109
    CTR0.05%
    Average View Duration0:42
    Average Percentage Viewed30.1%

    The numbers are quite clear: massive exposure with zero conversion. The video was heavily surfaced, the algorithm was obviously targeting the wrong audience — no clicks. Let’s check out the traffic sources.

    Suggested videos51%
    YouTube Search29.8%
    Channel pages6.0%
    Other YouTube features4.6%
    Direct or unknown3.3%
    Others5.3%

    Over half of impressions came from suggested videos and not from the home feed. This probably means that the algorithm clustered my video with similar videos based on thumbnail, titles, or other reason and somehow got it wrong. Let’s dig deeper into other audience signals.

    Top geographiesNot enough data
    Age DistributionNot enough data
    Gender DistributionNot enough data
    New vs Returning viewersNot enough data
    Subscribed vs non-subscribed viewers88.7% Subscribed

    No luck. This is a new channel with very little views. There is simply not enough data. The fact that 88.7% of watch time was from subscribers reinforces what we already know but adds nothing new.

    Computer50.9%
    Mobile Phone25.2%
    TV16.4%
    Tablet7.5%

    No much information added from device type either. Let’s look at viewer engagement next.

    Viewer Retention (30 Seconds)42%
    Viewer Retention (60 Seconds)25%
    Viewer Retention (90 Seconds)23%
    Viewer Retention (120 Seconds)17%
    Viewer Retention (End of video)5%

    Viewer engagement is not stellar but it is inline with other videos. 3.5% end screen element clicks (4.4% channel average), 10 comments, 7 likes, and 0 dislikes. An underperforming video but still no explanation for the algorithmic misfire (nobody clicked).

    Last check. Let’s look at the top referring videos.

    The Wrong Crowd


    ImpressionsCTRViewsAVD
    Chill Time Jazz Haven Pt 3538,0370%120:24
    Jazz for Life Pt 2032,0640%10:19
    Funny Jazz Pt 1219,0290%10:05
    Chill Jazz Time Pt 234,7040%

    I think we found the problem. For some reason the algorithm thinks my photography videos look identical to chill-jazz and city-ambience videos.

    I looked at the videos, and to be honest, I could understand why a machine would make that mistake. The soundtracks were almost identical, the mood and ambience were similar. So were the pacing and the visuals. My choice of category: “Travel & Events” did not help things either. 

    Most human viewers saw the absurdity immediately; but the algorithm saw only patterns and a shared visual tone. The machine didn’t misunderstand me (or the 280,000 viewers that were recommended my video). It recognized me — just as something I wasn’t.

    Mixed Signals

    The easy conclusion is the algorithm failed. Which in many ways it did. But the signals I was sending the machine were unclear. It was a Signal to Noise ratio problem: there was not enough clear signaling on my end and the machine simply mirrored the noise.

    The algorithm was hitting the target I painted but not the target I wanted.

    I needed to improve my thumbnails, fine tune my titles, I need to communicate better with my viewers. The algorithm is not broken — I need to do better. 

    Signal Over Noise

    What I did right (Signal)

    • Title: Direct, keyword-rich, and accurately describes subject, activity, and gear.
    • Tags were all relevant and accurate. I avoided spam tags or irrelevant terms, which kept metadata clean and credible.
    • Accurate geographic tagging. Mentioned specific district and city.
    • Thumbnail Likely clean, photographic, not clickbait. Aligns with brand tone and audience expectation.
    • Early data suggests honest audience behavior
    • 88.7% of watch time from subscribers → engagement remains loyal. Retention (42% after 30s, 17% at 2m) within normal limits for short, quiet videos.

    What I did Wrong (Noise)

    • Chose the Wrong Category Set to Travel & Events. This category associates with city walks, ambience, and travel vlogs — not documentary street photography. Result: the algorithm pushed it to passive “background viewing” audiences instead of creator-interest clusters.
    • Over-repetitive Title Format. A repeated title structure made different videos appear algorithmically identical. Machine-learning models read this as a series clone, reducing semantic distinction and triggering similarity-based recommendations. Category and Title Reinforced Each Other
    • Thumbnail Too Neutral. Likely mirrored prior uploads — muted color, calm street composition. Visual similarity can further confirm “duplicate content” signals across uploads.
    • No Early Disambiguation in Description The copy doesn’t tell the viewer what type of video it is until the third line. Without a strong first-sentence keyword the algorithm groups it generically.
    • Tags Under-specified for Creative Intent. Location tags reinforce the travel angle. Mix in intent-level tags.
  • 500 YouTube Watch Hours in 776 Days — The Real Numbers

    The photography channel reached 500 YouTube watch hours on October 15 2025 — 776 days and 62 videos after launch.

    Milestone Snapshot

    MetricValue
    Total Watch Hours500
    Date of MilestoneOctober 15, 2025
    Days Since Launch770
    Total Videos Published62

    A few ratios for anyone tracking their own progress:

    • Watch Hours per Day: 0.64
    • Watch Hours per Video: 8.06
    • Watch Hours per Minute of Published Content: 2.15

    Key Viewer Metrics

    (All metrics from YouTube Analytics as of October 15th, 2025)

    MetricValue
    Total Views9,182
    Average View Duration3:16
    Average % Viewed26.9%
    Average CTR3.5%

    Top Videos

    VideoWatch HoursPercent
    TOP 1 Video383.676.5%
    TOP 3 Videos398.782.3%
    TOP 5 Videos412.784.7%

    One video continues to carry the channel. Video 052 — the same outlier discussed earlier — still accounted for about 10 % of total watch hours this past week, while all attempts to recreate it have fallen short.

    VideoWatch HoursPercent
    Video 052383.676.5%
    Video 06215.13.0%
    Video 05914.02.8%
    Video 0426.51.3%
    Video 0575.71.1%
    Others75.115.3%

    500 watch hours reached on October 15th, 2025. All data sourced from YouTube Analytics.

  • Social Media Monthly Report – September 2025

    Social Media Monthly Report – September 2025

    August took ~35 hours to produce two episodes of The Photography Channel. September took ~34 hours and produced none. Zero releases this month. 

    This is the second in a series of Social Media Monthly Reports. Each month, I’ll share numbers, hours, and notes that show what it actually takes to build a creative media business. Even if it means revealing the ugly truth.

    Executive Summary

    September’s target was straightforward:

    • Publish 4 videos.
    • Invest ~60 hours, with post-production under 50%.
    • Streamline editing to save time.
    • Track the same KPIs as August for month-over-month comparison.

    The aim was to hold a steady output before adding specific targets for views, watch time, or subscribers. Instead, I tried to recreate outliers, chased perfection, and ended up with nothing: target hours were not met, zero videos were released, and inconsistency remains the major factor plaguing the channel.

    Here is the month in numbers.

    Key Metrics


    AUGSEPChange
    Impressions79702353-5570
    Views461138-323
    Click-through Rate (CTR)4%3.8%-0.2 pp
    Total Watch Time (Hours)20.97.4-13.5
    Subscribers174175+1

    No uploads meant fewer impressions, fewer views, and a sharp drop in watch time. CTR held steady; the problem was output, not packaging. 

    This is what a zero-release month yields.

    Production Breakdown


    AUG (Hours)AUG (%)SEP (Hours)SEP (%)
    Pre-Production9.2527%13.0039%
    Production3.4210%3.009%
    Post-Production18.0852%7.2521%
    Publishing0.501%00%
    Marketing00%4.6714%
    Other3.5010%5.7517%
    Total34.75100%33.67100%

    Out of 33.67 hours, 39% went into pre-production: planning and ideation loops. Video editing accounted for about 20% of the time; the drop in post-production hours happened because nothing was finalized, not because editing got faster. Publishing was zero.

    Second-order effects followed. Trying to recreate a prior outlier pushed more scripting and “one more pass” in the edit; two videos’ worth of footage ended up in the recycle bin. With no releases, momentum broke and hours drifted into mundane admin work that didn’t move the channel. Given that pattern, here’s what has to change.

    After-Action Notes

    With momentum, inertia works in your favor and production runs efficiently. Break it, and you pay dearly — clawing back to where you were takes extreme effort. 

    In an earlier post, I wrote about the mistake of chasing outliers. That’s where I slipped this month. 

    The correction is simple: protect the weekly release schedule, and accept imperfections in the cut so videos actually get released.

    Next Month (OCT 2025)

    The goals are simple:

    • Publish 4 videos.
    • Invest ~40 hours, with post-production under 50%.

    The aim is to hold this output steady for the next six months before adding specific targets for views, watch time, or subscribers. The key is consistency and building momentum.

    Closing

    This is the cost of doing the work — measured in hours, not hype. If you’re building your own machine, start by tracking your inputs.

    For those who prefer the full data in one go, I’ve pulled the charts into a short deck. The “boardroom version” of this report — 45 seconds, numbers only.

    This is the second in a monthly series. The next Social Media Monthly Report will follow in November. If you want to keep track of how the numbers move, subscribe.

  • Outlier Videos Don’t Build Channels: The Case for Consistency and Sustainable YouTube Growth

    Outlier Videos Don’t Build Channels: The Case for Consistency and Sustainable YouTube Growth

    My best performing video on The Photography Channel was an outlier. 

    While most videos struggled to break 100 views, this video crossed 100 comments in a few days and reached over 3,750 views; more than 50x the average of 73 views. 

    It also nearly killed my channel in the process.

    Video #52

    Before that outlier, I had already published 51 videos on my Photography Channel. They received very little views and I was understandably frustrated. 

    For 199 days and 20 videos, silence — until one professional photographer finally commented: ‘This is a criminally underrated channel!!!’ Very encouraging, but still no momentum.

    So I tried something new. I experimented with structure, stuck to my weekly upload schedule, and failed. I tried again. Failed. A third time. Same result.

    Then I decided to go all in on a radically new format. I thought it through endlessly, committed resources, and still wasn’t happy with it. But after it consumed too much time, I uploaded it anyway and left town for the weekend.

    By the time I was back online, Video #52 had taken off. Views spiked. Comments started pouring in. My subscribers jumped from 6 to 106.

    I thought I had cracked the formula. But I didn’t look at the numbers behind the numbers.

    The Numbers Behind The Numbers

    The first 51 videos took, on average, less than 8 hours to produce.

    Pre-Production0.567.2%
    Production2.8136.0%
    Post-Production3.8148.9%
    Publishing0.476.0%
    Marketing0.101.3%
    Other0.030.4%
    Total7.79100.0%

    Video #52 was different. It took a total of 61 hours to complete.

    Pre-Production26.7543.9%
    Production6.9211.4%
    Post-Production25.5041.9%
    Publishing0.250.4%
    Marketing1.502.5%
    Other0.0%
    Total60.92100.0%

    The pre-production was manageable. The editing nearly broke me.

    The Trap

    A Tactical Error

    Not anticipating success was forgivable. Following it with three weaker videos, already in the pipeline, wasn’t. They performed like the old videos — but now it stung.

    A Strategic Failure

    The real strategic mistake was deciding to stick with the new heavy format. 61 hours for one video is unsustainable. That’s two weeks of full-time work, or a month if it’s a side project. 

    Still, I pushed forward. The next video took 42.5 hours — stretched painfully over 4.5 months. I forced it out just to publish. It was weaker, late, and momentum was gone. It tanked.

    Eventually, I returned to my previous (lighter) format. Consistency returned, views doubled, and growth resumed. Slow and steady.

    Until recently, when I repeated the same error: chasing another outlier. One month later, and still nothing to show for it. I had to stop and reset. Consistency is my top priority again.

    Consistency Leads To Sustainability

    Ideally, every video should be like video #52 — well-researched and executed. But that is not sustainable.

    I enjoyed the results. I hated the process. The 25+ hours of editing drained all joy. That’s not viable for a small channel. 

    That’s why I’m returning to the lighter format and weekly uploads. Not because consistency is a value on its own — but because it is a tool enabling sustainability.

    Growth may be slower. Views may be lower. But the channel will survive. 

    Cash Flow and Time Flow

    Starting an online social media business today has almost no barriers-to-entry. 

    In traditional business environments what usually causes small and starting businesses to fail is lack of cash flow. Creators fail from lack of time flow.

    Time is the true currency.

    Manage it like cash. Unlike cash, time can’t be replenished.


    You can’t build on outliers. Celebrate them when they happen, but it’s the average, repeatable videos that you consistently upload that carry a channel forward.

    I was watching the speedometer, ignoring the empty gas tank.

  • How Long Does It Really Take to Make a YouTube Video?

    How Long Does It Really Take to Make a YouTube Video?

    One photography channel. Sixty-one videos, 584 minutes — 9.74 hours — to publish a video, on average.

    When I searched for the same answer, all I found was noise: vague guesses, conflicting advice, nothing backed by numbers. I needed the numbers.

    So I logged every minute of my workflow across the last few years. Every hour: scripting, shooting, editing. Mistakes included. The point is to see them clearly, learn from them, and avoid repeating them.

    What follows is the data. Take what’s useful. Leave the rest.

    How Long Does It Take to Make a YouTube Video?

    The average time to create a YouTube video on my photography channel is 584 minutes — 9.74 hours (9:44).

    MIN1.87
    MAX60.92
    MEDIAN7.37
    AVG9.74

    The range is extreme. The fastest came in just under 2 hours, a quick repurpose of old content. At the other end, one video consumed almost 61 hours. That marathon also turned out to be the channel’s best performer (a story for another post).

    To show the distribution, here are two box plots: one with outliers, and one without.

    Box plot showing total hours per YouTube video, with outliers included. Range: 1.87–60.92 hours, median 7.37 hours.
    Box plot showing total hours per YouTube video, excluding outliers. Range compressed, median 7.37 hours.

    The Multiplier: Time per Published Minute 

    On average, each published minute of video required 169 minutes of work — a multiplier of 169x.

    MIN48
    MAX359
    MEDIAN147
    AVG169

    To show how inconsistent this ratio can be, here’s a box plot of the multiplier: minutes of work required for each published minute of video.

    Box plot showing the multiplier of minutes worked per published minute of video. Range 48–359×, median 147×, average 169×.

    The spread runs from 48× at the low end to 359× at the high end. This is the key metric to watch if you want to see whether you’re getting more efficient with your time. For now, my data is still inconclusive.

    YouTube Video Production Breakdown 

    Here’s where the hours actually go:

    • Pre-Production — ideation, research, planning, scripting
    • Production — shooting, voiceover
    • Post-Production — importing, editing, thumbnails, show notes
    • Publishing — uploads to YouTube and website
    • Marketing — promotion (mainly Instagram)
    • Other — admin, backups, maintenance
    Pre-Production1.3313.7%
    Production2.9530.3%
    Post-Production4.8750.0%
    Publishing0.434.4%
    Marketing0.121.3%
    Other0.030.3%
    Total9.74100.0%

    If you thought YouTube was about filming, the numbers prove otherwise. Only 30% in production, out in the field shooting. Nearly 65% happens behind a desk — planning, scripting, editing.

    By comparison, the time spent on publishing, marketing, and other is negligible per video. They do add up, so I track them in monthly reports.

    The Bottleneck: Editing Time

    Editing is the single largest sink of hours: 60% of post-production and ~30% of total time — almost equal to shooting itself (2.77 vs 2.92 hours).

    Editing demands as much time as being out shooting, but without the energy of the field. It is where my enthusiasm drains fastest — and where momentum usually dies.

    This is where projects stall. Push it and the schedule slips; keep pushing and the channel breaks.

    Time is the true cost. Gear is a one-off purchase. Software renews monthly. Time compounds, and once it’s gone, it’s gone. Ignore it, and the channel pays.

    Perfection kills, momentum breaks, systems save.

  • Social Media Monthly Report – August 2025: How Long It Really Takes to Make YouTube Videos

    Social Media Monthly Report – August 2025: How Long It Really Takes to Make YouTube Videos

    August took ~35 hours to produce two episodes of The Photography Channel. More than half of that time disappeared into post-production. On average, each finished minute of video required about two hours of work. That’s the multiplier — the real cost of running a YouTube channel.

    This is the first in a series of Social Media Monthly Reports. Each month, I’ll share numbers, hours, and notes that show what it actually takes to build a creative media business.

    Executive Summary

    Two videos went live this month out of a target of four. In total, I spent 34.75 hours on the channel. Views came in at 461, a slight dip of 6% compared to July; watch time rose by 25% to 20.9 hours. Subscribers grew to 174, up 12 from last month.

    This month I fell short of the four-video target — not because of lack of ideas or problems in production; time slipped away in the edit, and I didn’t maintain the schedule.

    Production Breakdown


    HoursPercent
    Pre-Production9.2527%
    Production3.4210%
    Post-Production18.0852%
    Publishing0.501%
    Marketing00%
    Other3.5010%
    Total34.75100%

    The plan for August was four videos; only two were completed. July delivered four videos after a long gap since February, so inconsistency remains a factor.

    Out of 34.75 hours, 52% went into post-production, with video editing alone accounting for 37% of all time spent. Pre-production (ideas and scripts) continues to take a significant share, while production itself is lean and efficient. Admin and other tasks made up around 10%.

    Key Metrics



    Change
    Impressions7970-23%
    Views4616%
    Click-through Rate (CTR)4%
    Total Watch Time (Hours)20.925%
    Subscribers17412
    Total34.75100%

    The numbers are modest, but they’re honest. After a long break from YouTube and an uneven month, they set a baseline for what a small channel produces under strain.

    Next Month (SEP 2025)

    The goals are clear:

    • Publish 4 videos.
    • Invest ~60 hours, with post-production under 50%.
    • Streamline editing to save time.
    • Track the same KPIs as August for month-over-month comparison.

    The aim is to hold this output steady for the next six months before adding specific targets for views, watch time, or subscribers.

    Closing

    This is the cost of doing the work — measured in hours, not hype. If you’re building your own machine, start by tracking your inputs.

    For those who prefer the full data in one go, I’ve pulled the charts into a short deck. The “boardroom version” of this report — 45 seconds, numbers only.

    This is the first in a monthly series. The next Social Media Monthly Report will follow in October. If you want to keep track of how the numbers move, subscribe.

  • Systems Save Your Channel: Lessons from Three False Starts

    Systems Save Your Channel: Lessons from Three False Starts

    Three channels in eight years. Two are dead; the third is barely alive. Creators don’t die from lack of ideas — they die from lost momentum, burnout, or the refusal to hit publish. I know because I buried my own. Over-prepared, over-spent, over-thought — I dug the graves myself. I learned the hard way that perfectionism kills, momentum breaks, and only systems save your channel.

    Perfectionism Kills

    In 2017, I decided to start a YouTube channel. The idea was simple: document a hobby I was already sinking time and money into. I had a topic I cared about, a steady paycheck, and money to burn. So I burned it.

    I bought all the gear — and then some. A fancy camera, an expensive mic, a drone, the whole kit.

    By early 2018, I had the concept worked out. I designed a logo, built a release schedule, wrote a business plan, and mapped out my first series of videos.

    And yet, two years later, by December 2019 my channel had 0 views and 0 subscribers.

    I never uploaded a single video. I spent those years circling the drain — reading, rewriting, re-editing, scrapping, repeating. Chasing “perfect.” The videos were never “ready.”

    I wanted the launch flawless. No compromises. The result? A two-year-old channel with no videos, no viewers, no subscribers — only disappointment.

    In early 2020, I forced the launch. I ignored the shaky footage, the bad thumbnails, the weak topics. Done was better than perfect.

    Twelve episodes made it out. By the time the twelfth dropped, I knew it was the last.

    COVID may have killed the channel’s premise, but perfectionism had already buried it.

    Years of work, thousands of dollars spent, twelve episodes, and 29 subscribers to show for it.

    Not the worst blunder of my career, but it still stings.

    Momentum Breaks

    By the time COVID restrictions lifted, I was in a new job on a new continent — living inside a guarded compound in Africa. No roaming around with expensive gear there.

    What I did have was time. Weekends free. A reading list as long as the Nile. Old books, some out of print for decades. Then I found an article, more than a hundred years old, on a subject I was already obsessed with.

    In less than an hour, I had the first three episodes sketched. 

    I was starting a podcast.

    For nine straight Saturdays, I kept the streak. I’d finish the book I was reading, then record my voice into a beat-up office microphone. My “studio” was a blanket, two pillows, and a couple of couch cushions. It worked.

    The podcast was niche on top of niche, but it brought me joy. And then I moved again.

    Turbulent years. Asia. Europe. Africa. Asia, again. Four countries, three continents, three jobs — all in under three years.

    Each move broke the rhythm. And because the show was never baked into a system, I couldn’t recover it. The gear was minimal, the prep was light — but without a structure to anchor it, the podcast collapsed the moment life pulled me away.

    Momentum is hard to build, sometimes even harder to rebuild

    By the time I was ready to relaunch, I was back where I’d started in 2019. Full circle — and no podcast left standing.

    Systems Save Your Channel

    By 2023, I was back where I started: one dead YouTube channel and a broken podcast. Restarting either felt heavy — one required too much money, the other too much time. Both needed a serious reboot.

    So I started fresh. A new YouTube channel. Less ambitious than the first, lighter than the podcast. A weekly video on another hobby I’d picked up — photography.

    I’m now over sixty episodes in. The channel is still struggling to get traction, but it has potential.

    This time I launched without over-planning — and learned faster than I ever had before.

    Publish, learn, repeat. 

    I improved far faster than I ever did reading tutorials or obsessing over plans. Learning by doing works.

    But I underestimated the effort. Publishing weekly without systems meant every video felt like starting from scratch. The schedule slipped, the backlog grew, and catching up became the routine.

    One video blew up while I was on a business trip, and I had nothing ready to follow it. The spike died as quickly as it came. Inconsistency killed the chance to build momentum.

    Forget the myth that “consistency is for the algorithm.” Audiences might forgive missed uploads, algorithms might look the other way. But YouTube won’t invest in you if you don’t invest in yourself. 

    Consistency is for you — to create momentum, to keep learning, to stay sharp, to catch the rare moments when the door cracks open. And consistency comes from structure: templates and checklists to cut decision fatigue, a backlog to absorb life’s chaos, and a release pipeline that makes publishing as automatic as possible.

    Without those systems, you’re gambling on willpower. And willpower doesn’t scale

    Systems don’t just save time. Systems save your channel.

    Zen Against The Machine

    Through all of this — false starts, broken streaks, and hard-won lessons — I kept records. Every hour spent scripting, shooting, editing. Every dollar burned on gear I needed, and gear I didn’t.

    Zen Against The Machine exists to track those lessons in real time. To build in public. To show how creative projects survive, fail, or adapt when tested in the wild.

    The point isn’t to avoid mistakes. It’s to see them clearly, learn faster, and build with intent.

    If you want to see what it really takes to build an online business without hype or shortcuts, stick around or start here: The Experiment Begins.

    Take what’s useful for your project. Leave the rest.