Last night, I started watching the new Ken Burns series on The American Revolution.

My guess is a) you’ve heard of him.

And if so, b) you have some idea what a Ken Burns series is like:

​

Multi-year effort.

Multi-part deep dive.

On some pivotal period or personality within American history.

A slow, deliberate re-telling using voice overs, simple melodies and slow pans over still images.

Typically some watercooler buzz and critical acclaim.

And ultimately required viewing in your kid’s high school history class.

​

If you can conjure all of that just from hearing his name, he’s sure developed a reputation for himself.

​

But it made me think: is he too mainstream to be niche?

Is someone who’s considered a GOAT too broad to be considered niche?

​

Or was it his tight niche that enabled his rise to fame?

​

I’d argue it’s the latter.

Take a look at his filmography.

After some early films on topics like the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty, he went all in with a 9-part series on The Civil War.

Four years later, a 10-part series on Baseball.

Then a 10-part series on Jazz.

7-parts on WWII.

6-parts on The National Parks.

10-parts on Vietnam.

8-parts on Country Music.

and many other 2-to-3-parters on individual figures.

​

Seeing all these strung together, there’s no doubt he found his preferred filmmaking format, style and rhythm.

And as each rep tells another deeply-researched American story, he continues to build his authority and profile.

To the point when Ken Burns announces a new project.

We all tune in, knowing what he’s about to serve.

​

Yup, I’d say that’s niche, alright.

Hitting the mainstream is just the bonus.

​

💡

-Wes