The Why Test for Targeted Comedy
Check the purpose before turning criticism into entertainment
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 96%
Dean cites Ricky Gervais's maxim that comedy needs a why, especially when it targets someone. He contrasts a Zoella advent-calendar video, which he still regards as a justified product-focused sketch, with later videos in which he searched for flaws because a familiar name would attract views. He also recalls condemning KSI from a position he now describes as financially and attention motivated, despite admiring the people involved. The decision rule is to identify the genuine purpose, isolate the action or product being criticised, inspect personal incentives, and ask whether another instalment would cross from satire into disproportionate targeting. The output is a publish, revise, or stop decision. This framework captures Dean's ethical reflection; it does not decide whether every example he mentions was objectively fair.
Origin
Dean attributes the core maxim to Ricky Gervais and applies it retrospectively to his own commentary videos.
Core principles
- 01Targeted comedy needs a defensible reason
- 02Critique a product or action rather than manufacturing faults in a person
- 03Views, money, exclusion, and jealousy can distort judgement
- 04A successful first critique does not justify endless follow-ups
- 05Consider the human effect of amplified criticism
How to run it
- 1
Name the target
Specify whether the joke addresses a product, statement, action, or person. Narrowing the target makes the intended criticism testable.
Pro tip Phrase the target without using the person's fame as the reason it matters.
Watch out A famous name in the title can conceal that the underlying premise is weak.
- 2
State the why
Write one honest sentence explaining why the subject deserves satire or criticism. Look for a real comic premise, contradiction, or consequential action.
Pro tip If the reason is only that the video will perform, stop and reassess.
- 3
Audit your incentives
Check whether money, attention, exclusion, envy, or audience expectation is producing anger you do not genuinely feel. Distinguish the public rationale from the private motive.
Pro tip Ask what you would believe if the subject's name attracted no views.
Watch out Self-awareness after publication does not undo the impact on the target.
- 4
Keep the criticism proportionate
Focus on the relevant product or action and remove unnecessary personal attacks. Consider how amplification changes the effect of a joke.
Pro tip Review whether the same point can land without speculating about character.
Watch out A comic tone does not automatically prevent repeated targeting from becoming harmful.
- 5
Test the follow-up
Before repeating the subject, ask whether there is a genuinely new why. Stop when the only remaining mechanism is familiarity, revenue, or audience demand.
Pro tip Treat each follow-up as a new decision, not an entitlement created by the first video's success.
- 6
Make the decision
Publish when the purpose is clear and the treatment proportionate; revise when the target is too broad; stop when the motive is manufactured.
Pro tip Have a trusted person challenge the stated why before a high-reach release.
In the wild
Dean says his video about Zoella's advent calendar had a clear reason: the product and its price created a comic premise, and he says the video focused on the product rather than making nasty claims about her. He remains proud of that sketch while questioning where repeated follow-ups would cross a line.
→ He distinguishes a critique he still considers purposeful from later content he regards as forced.
Dean recalls quickly recording a video calling for KSI to be cancelled after a press-conference remark. He now says he admired both participants and was motivated by views, money, attention, and feeling excluded from the wider YouTube scene rather than by an authentic position.
→ The retrospective incentive check identifies the video as one he regrets.
Common mistakes
Using performance as the why
Expected views or revenue describe an incentive, not a defensible editorial purpose.
Turning one critique into a persona
Audience demand for repeated attacks can pressure a creator to search for faults that do not genuinely matter to them.
Ignoring cumulative impact
A single product joke and a series of personal follow-ups can have different effects. Reassess the why and proportionality every time.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for comedians and creators deciding whether public criticism has a real comic or accountability purpose.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal as a substitute for legal, safeguarding, or editorial review when allegations involve serious harm.
From the transcript
“there needs to be a why in comedy”
“If you're targeting someone, why are you doing it?”
“Is it becoming bullying now? Like that's not who I want to be.”
From the episode
Jaackmaate: The Untold Story Of My Battle With Health Anxiety & OCD