One thing I've noticed as a video editor is that a longer timeline doesn't always mean a better video.
It's easy to get attached to a visually impressive shot, an interesting transition, or a small detail that took time to create. But not everything needs to stay in the final cut.
I try to think about what each shot actually adds to the story. Does it help the viewer understand something, improve the pacing, or make the sequence more engaging? If not, sometimes cutting it makes the whole video stronger.
This is also something I think about when working with AI-generated footage. A clip can look great on its own but still feel out of place in the final edit.
Six months ago, our team got swept up in the AI hype. We decided to spend 12 weeks and a huge chunk of our runway building an automated AI assistant into our SaaS platform. We thought it would be the ultimate selling point and double our signups.
Last month, we launched it. The result?
Our signup-to-paid conversion rate actually dropped by 15%.
Only 8% of active users clicked on the AI feature in the first two weeks.
We got 4 support tickets from users saying the new UI was "cluttered" and confusing.
I finally talked to some of our long-time power users to figure out what went wrong. One of them said it perfectly: "I don't want an AI to write my reports for me. I just want you to fix the CSV export bug that I've reported three times."
When someone says a product feels confusing, that feedback is useful but hard to act on without more context. I think asking them to walk through what they were trying to do could reveal more than asking which feature they want.
For those who talk to users regularly, what follow-up question helps you get from this is confusing to something you can actually improve?
