I’ve always been fascinated by the power of storytelling. Do you know that feeling of telling a story and having everybody captivated? Or when you know you are fully invested in something just because of how it well it’s being told? As I continue to explore the intersection between online strategies and impact on Science Communication on YouTube, this paper immediately caught my attention.
This study, published in 2020, examines how different storytelling components contribute to the popularity of science videos on YouTube. It’s a perfect blend of narrative theory, science communication research, and empirical analysis.
Huang, T., & Grant, W. J. (2020). A good story well told: Storytelling components that impact science video popularity on YouTube. Frontiers in Communication, 5, 581349. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.581349
Storytelling and Science on YouTube:
The authors start from a simple observation: YouTube has become a dominant arena for science communication, attracting billions of viewers globally. Yet, while we know algorithms and thumbnail tricks matter, less attention has been paid to what in the content itselft makes audiences click, stay, and share.
Previous research has focused on several content factors that influence video popularity like video length, host consistency, and emotional engagement contribute to success. However, few studies had empirically tested how storytelling elements influence de popularity of science videos.
The authors set out to fill this gap, investigating seven storytelling components derived from narrative theory and digital storytelling frameworks:
- Narrative point of view: who tells the story and how (first, second, or third person). It shapes how personal, direct, or distant the story feels to the audience.
- Use of voice: how the narrator speaks to the audience. This includes whether the presenter speaks directly to the camera, uses voice-over visuals, mixes both, or doesn’t use spoken voice at all. It affects the intimacy of the message.
- Dramatic question: the hook that drives curiosity. A clear, intriguing question posed early on the story that keeps the audience engaged and wanting to know the answer by the end.
- Moments of change: the plot twists. These are shifts in the narrative that create tension, reveal new information, or change the direction of the story.
- Insight: the “so what” of the story. This is the message or takeaway.
- Emotional arousal: how strongly the story makes people feel (excitement, awe, surprise).
- Status of story: how central the story is to the video. This measures whether the video is mainly structured around a narrative (high status), uses only small story elements, or has no story at all (low or none).
In short, they wanted to know: Do popular science videos use these elements differently than less popular ones?
The Method:
The study analysed 306 science videos published in 2019 by 52 highly popular science YouTube channels, selected using metrics from SocialBlade. For each channel, the researchers compared the most-viewed and least-viewed videos to control for content-agnostic factors like channel popularity.
Each video was coded for the presence and intensity of the seven storytelling components. The team then used statistical analyses (Chi-square tests and logistic regression) to examine which components were significantly associated with higher view count.
Key Findings:
The results were clear: storytelling matters.
- Emotional arousal was strongest predictor of popularity. Videos that stirred excitement, awe, or tension were almost three times more likely to be in the “most-view” group.
- Status of story also mattered. Videos that revolved around a central narrative rather than a list of facts were significantly more popular.
- Dramatic questions, insights, and moments of change (plot twist) were also associated with higher views, though to a lesser degree.
- Voice (on-camera vs. voiceover) and narrative point of view (first vs. third person) were less relevant. These factors did not significantly predict popularity.
The authors sum it up: a popular science video is often a 12-minute, emotionally engaging story that raises a question, takes viewers through twists and insights, and ends with a satisfying conclusion.
Limitations & What’s left to explore:
As with any study, here are some limitations:
- The sample is limited to YouTube, which may not reflect other platforms (the paper also notes that YouTube users tend to be more educated than on other platforms).
- The view count was used as a proxy for popularity, which doesn’t necessarily capture deeper engagement or learning outcomes.
- Only seven storytelling components were examined, there maybe more narrative features at play.
- Correlation, not causation: these components are associated with popularity but don’t guarantee it (this was also pointed in previous analysis: here and here).
- Viewer demographics, interests, and algorithmic effects weren’t fully captured.
- Only one researcher categorised themes and formats, which could introduce some bias (like in a previous analysis).
And, of course, storytelling is inherently subjective, what counts as “good story” varies across cultures and audiences.
Conclusions:
This paper reinforces something many science communicators intuitively know: a good story matters. But it also shows that not all storytelling elements are equally powerful. Emotional engagement and narrative structure are particularly critical for driving popularity.
For science communicators, the implication is clear: asking a compelling question, creating moments of change, and delivering emotional impact can help your science reach a wider audience. This is not about oversimplifying or sensationalising (definitely not about clickbait), it’s about harnessing narrative to make science memorable and engaging.
This was an especially relevant read for me as I think about how research impact extends beyond journals and conferences. A story well told can carry science further than a paper well written, so maybe I should stop writing like a robot.
See you in the next paper =)