You know this video.

The creator has barely finished the opening hook and we’ve already been bombarded with three camera punches, five words in enormous captions, a stock clip of a private jet and at least one completely unearned bomb sound effect.

You haven’t heard the point yet, but you already feel like you’re being sold something.

This talking head style, championed by Alex Hormozi, worked because it gave the format energy. Tight cuts, constant visual reinforcement, aggressive captions and frequent B-roll, turned what could have been a static monologue into something that felt urgent and authoritative.

Then everyone copied it.

In fact, I have a theory that a lot of AI generated motion graphics and templates were all trained on the Hormozi style, which is why it all looks so similar.

Once a production style becomes familiar enough, it stops having a positive impact. What once communicated confidence and authority starts to communicate a disingenuous lack of interest from the host. Instead of making a creator look more credible, excessive polish can make the video feel like a pitch.

To be clear, I’m not trying to promote a sweeping YouTube rule. I’m only speaking based on experiences with the content we produce. There are plenty of views being snatched up by those glossy talking head videos, so clearly something still works.

But in the expert-led talking-head and podcast content we work on, our personal tastes and analytical feedback keep drawing us towards something more lo-fi.

We recently relaunched Sources, Alex Heath’s technology podcast. The show doesn’t open with a cinematic trailer, a narrated setup or a rapid-fire montage teasing everything you’re about to hear. It starts with the first interview question.

The thumbnails use frames from the actual conversation, usually with minimal text, maybe a company logo. The editing is clean, but it doesn’t try to manufacture excitement around every sentence.

The B-roll is deliberate, only being used to reinforce the messaging. If a guest talks about an app, show what the app does. If they reference an article, put the article on screen. If they describe something that happened onstage, show the moment.

The visual helps the viewer to better understand the conversation, not simply prove that an editor was present.

The relaunch received a strong early response. But it would be very convenient for us, the team running the production, to claim that it was solely due to the restrained editing.

We’ve had major guests in the first few episodes, a new identity and a coordinated promotional effort. All of which had a significant impact. The result does not prove that simpler production wins, but it does show that an interview can hold attention without being wrapped in constant production tricks.

We’ve started trying this out with another creator’s thumbnails. Instead of making every upload feel sensational, we began moving toward natural frames from the videos with a small amount of text or one clear visual element.

The goal wasn’t to make the work look cheap. It was to make the packaging feel like an honest extension of the video behind it while still grabbing attention.

Think of MoistCr1TiKaL and MrBeast as opposite ends of a production spectrum.

One carries the video almost entirely through the idea, delivery and personality, while consistently putting up huge numbers. The other is Mr. Beast.

Both approaches can work extremely well. The problem starts when every creator assumes they need to move toward the same end of that spectrum, regardless of what the audience is actually there for.

My argument is that excessive production can start competing with the thing people came to see when your product is expertise or personality.

Here’s our new test: does this choice help the viewer understand, believe or feel something?

If the B-roll clarifies the point, keep it. If the caption makes a complicated idea easier to follow, keep it. If the camera movement gives an important moment more weight, keep it.

If it’s there because the screen hasn’t changed in four seconds and everyone is getting nervous, you can probably lose it.

Simple production is not a shortcut. In some ways, it is less forgiving. When the captions stop and the B-roll no longer fills every gap, more responsibility falls on the idea, the delivery and the authority.

If the creator is boring, there is nowhere to hide.

By giving up some of the manufactured momentum, you create more space for the creator to sound like someone worth listening to.

Go get ’em.

Leave a comment

Share

We produce a lot of podcast clips at Hooked. Which means we get pitched a lot of software that promises to make producing podcast clips easier.

Upload the episode. Let AI find the best moments. Get a batch of clips ready to publish.

I understand the appeal. When you have multiple shows going out every week, anything that can reliably take work off your team’s plate is worth trying.

And we’ve tried: Opus Clip, Descript, Autocut, Riverside, Veed, and more…

We keep ending up in the same place.

Having a human select, structure, and edit the clips gets us a better product, with less back-and-forth, in less total time.

At a certain point, repeatedly testing a shortcut that creates more work becomes its own production problem.

The part that frustrates me most is how much of the pitch assumes that deciding what makes a good clip is something we can skip.

A conversation might contain an interesting statement. But will someone who has never seen the show understand why it matters? Does the clip give them enough context? Does it start at the right moment? Do we need to reorder the dialogue? Is there an actual payoff?

Those decisions are the work.

Imagine a guest tells a great story halfway through an episode. The setup happened two minutes earlier. The most useful explanation comes immediately afterward. Somewhere in the middle, the host interrupts with a tangent.

A good editor can build a complete piece out of that material. Bring in the necessary setup, remove the detour, preserve the speaker’s meaning, and get to the payoff before the viewer loses interest.

The strongest version almost never exists as one uninterrupted section of the conversation.

That came up in a podcast production discussion earlier this year. The team had tested automated clipping and still needed manual editing. Their preferred clips were deliberately built into short stories, sometimes by combining multiple moments.

They also reported that manually selected clips consistently performed better on YouTube.

Another problem: the automated selections kept favoring one host. Someone still had to understand the show well enough to recognize what the other host contributed and go looking for those moments.

That is a pretty fundamental editorial decision to leave to a tool that keeps getting it wrong.

And once those decisions come back to you and your team, the time-saving argument goes out the window.

Someone has to watch the generated clips, work out which ones are usable, check the context against the episode, fix the opening, restructure the edit, review the new version… not to mention a plethora of technical bugs, eg. showing the wrong person, bad captions, glitchy frames, etc.

The overwhelming consensus from our editing team is that they’d have been better off editing it manually from the get-go. We’ve scrapped auto-edits often enough that at this point, I struggle to see how it’s in any way worthwhile.

A one-minute first export means very little if your editor spends another two hours trying to turn it into something worth publishing.

And producing more clips doesn’t solve that problem. If the selections are weak, a bigger batch gives your team a bigger review queue.

For a podcast producing clips every week, I’d put that effort into an editor who understands the show. Someone who knows the hosts, recognizes what the audience cares about, and can explain why a particular moment deserves to become a clip.

That understanding gets better with repetition: feedback from one episode carries into the next - the editor learns which openings take too long, which ideas need more context, and which moments actually deliver.

That is where I want our production process to become more efficient.

We use AI elsewhere in the production process - we’re all thrilled AI does our captions. I’m happy to use tools that take specific tasks off our plate or make us more effective. AI clip selection and assembly ain’t it.

If you’re evaluating one of these platforms, count everything: selection, review, corrections, re-editing, and approval. Then look at how the finished clips perform.

I’d bet a good human editor will keep winning.

Go get ‘em

Leave a comment

Share

Creators tend to make this decision by looking at subscriber count.

“I already have 200,000 subscribers. I can’t just walk away from that.”

Or the opposite:

“My audience subscribed for something else. I need to start over.”

Neither is a particularly useful way to think about it.

Subscriber count is not the deciding factor. The real question is whether the new content makes a compatible promise to the same viewer.

Adam Witt’s channel is a good example.

Adam had built an audience around food, but the channel was moving away from conventional recipes and reviews. The new direction was more ambitious: recognizable dishes wrapped in cultural history, commercialization stories, cooking, humor and Adam’s personality. Shot on a greenscreen with a ton of graphics and quirky editing.

It was a hard format pivot, but a similar value proposition.

The person who wanted to watch Adam cook deep dish pizza could plausibly be interested in why ranch became America’s default condiment - provided the video still delivered food they wanted to eat, satisfying food porn, and Adam being Adam.

So we kept the pivot on his existing channel.

That did not mean uploading a completely different show and hoping the algorithm developed an appreciation for creative risk.

The first videos gave us a fairly blunt set of signals. Sushi attracted the highest share of new viewers and delivered above-average watch time. Other episodes lost viewers during historical sections that were a touch too long, then improved as soon as the cooking began.

The audience wasn’t rejecting history. It was rejecting having to absorb too many details.

That distinction refined the channel’s promise: interesting stories about food people actually want to eat.

History became context rather than the entire product. We shortened exposition, created more room for Adam’s personality, and packaged each video around a universally recognized food dish with a strong narrative hook.

We also resisted the urge to immediately rename everything or split the concept into a new channel. Instead, we tested “Cooking with Context” as a soft brand inside Adam’s existing channel.

The format gradually became repeatable: recognizable food, a surprising origin or commercialization story, a visual cooking hook and a taste-test payoff.

Then it worked more than once.

Ranch, Pad Thai, Nachos and Chicken Tikka all began trending toward roughly 100,000 views. By August, the new run had accumulated roughly 200,000 views since mid-June. One Hawaiian pizza video showed above-average view duration and even a rare retention spike near the ending. Adam’s video about Broasted Chicken absolutely crushed and will be at 500k views in due time. Now the content was doing its job so it was time to tweak the packaging.

That is what a successful pivot usually looks like. Not one insane viral breakout, but several uploads proving that the new promise has legs.

But, the same-channel decision does not always make sense.

We advised one founder not to launch a business podcast on an established comedy account. The subject, format and reason for watching were fundamentally different. Some people might follow the creator across both, but audience overlap is not the same thing as promise compatibility.

A tech channel made a different version of the same choice. Its show lived on the existing channel rather than the host’s personal account because the brand needed to support future hosts and maintain an editorial identity beyond one person.

Ryan George’s channel structure offers a public example: sketches on one channel, personality-led commentary on another. Same creator. Different value propositions.

So the practical test is not, “Can I bring some of these subscribers with me?”

Instead, it’s:

Would the same person reasonably want both versions of the channel for the same underlying reason?

Stay on the existing channel when 1. the subject is evolving but the viewer identity remains the same, 2. when your personality is a meaningful part of the value, and 3. when the new format still satisfies the reason people originally watched.

Start fresh when the new content serves a fundamentally different person, creates a sharply different expectation or needs an identity that can eventually exist without you.

If the answer is unclear, begin with a controlled test.

Publish a small run on the existing channel. Keep recognizable elements from the old promise. Introduce the new format consistently. Compare new-viewer share, click-through rate, retention and where viewers leave - not just total views. Then refine the balance before going all in.

A new channel can keep a clean separation between two vastly different types of videos.

But it can also prevent you from learning whether the pivot would have worked.

The question isn’t how many subscribers you might lose. It’s whether the person behind that subscription still recognizes what they came for.

Go get ‘em.

Leave a comment

Share

A brand came to us recently with an ad they’d made for YouTube. Fully AI generated, start to finish. Script, voice, visuals, all of it. It cost them almost nothing and it looked… fine. But results were less than fine, so they wanted to know what we thought went wrong.

Technically, nothing. Practically, everything.

The issue was that they’d made an ad that talked about community and togetherness while looking like AI slop. On a platform that runs on people, not on ads. I said something on that call I’ve been saying more and more to both creators and brands lately: to connect on YouTube, you have to be a YouTuber. You don’t get to show up with a handful of slop and expect the room to care.

Different conversation, same week. A review-focused channel, well researched, legitimately useful videos, flattening out. We went looking for the format problem and eventually landed somewhere less comfortable: a viewer can get that exact information out of Claude in about nine seconds. The information was never the reason to watch, the host was. But the videos were built like corporate explainers, so the host wasn’t clicking with the audience.

I had four conversations over the last two weeks about roughly the same concept. So here’s where I’ve landed:

The flood of cheap, competent content is doing your differentiation for you. Let it.

The clearest signal I’ve seen came from our creative partner Matt Wolfe, who lives deep in the AI space. Matt knows the tools better than anyone. His plan for this year isn’t more output. It’s fewer videos, rawer, documentary-style, bigger swings. Slower and more expensive on purpose.

The guy with the best access to the shortcut is deliberately walking past it. How ‘bout that?

(Also, a quick round of applause for Matt who is hitting 1M subscribers in the next week or so!)

For most of YouTube’s recent history, production quality was the moat. Cameras, editors, motion graphics, the time to use all three. Thanks to AI, that’s all changed. And when a constraint disappears, the value doesn’t disappear with it. It moves to whatever’s still scarce.

What’s still scarce is a person worth spending twenty minutes with.

Which is why the slop is such an opportunity rather than a threat. Our feeds are currently filling up with polished, cheap, forgettable videos. The bar for looking professional is heading to zero. The bar for being worth watching is going up. In fact, I would argue that audiences are actively pushing back on some higher-production videos in favor of more lo-fi offerings that have higher authenticity and relatability.

I know “the human part is the valuable part” is an extremely convenient thing for me to believe. But we use AI all over our own workflow. Transcripts, research, first-pass concepts. I’m still not making an anti-AI argument.

The line I’d draw is back office versus on camera. Use the machines for everything nobody sees. Nobody has ever subscribed to a workflow. Except productivity content…

Here’s the part I think most channels won’t do anything with, unfortunately. It asks for the opposite of what the last five years of advice trained everyone to do. Don’t make more videos. Don’t aim for a faster turnaround. Don’t add another tool to the stack. Be more present in your own content - something that is harder, slower, and a lot more exposing than generating twelve assets before lunch.

So, a question about your last upload: If you strip out every fact a viewer could have gotten somewhere else in under a minute, what’s left?

If the answer is “the video,” good. If it’s “not much,” you didn’t make a video. You made a search result with a face on it.

Go get ‘em.

Share

Leave a comment

I gave three different clients the same piece of advice this week, almost word for word. When that happens, it usually means we’re on to something.

The advice? Stop posting so many shorts.

With one, I asked them to unlist the shorts already on the channel and pause new ones entirely while we build out the long-form strategy. Another had brand deals lined up specifically for short-form and wanted to keep feeding it. A third was posting a short a day, because that’s what everybody says to do.

All three were doing the thing that feels like free reach, but is a slow-acting tax on the channel they actually want to build.

Here’s the epiphany:

YouTube decides what kind of channel you are, and then serves your videos to that channel’s audience.

It decides based on what you upload. Post mostly shorts, and you’re a shorts channel now. Congratulations.

Then you drop a 14-minute video, and YouTube does exactly what you’d expect: it serves it to the audience it thinks you have. Which is a shorts audience. People in a feed, thumb hovering, in a completely different mode. They are not sitting down for your deep dive. They swipe.

YouTube reads that swipe as “this video didn’t work” and pulls back distribution. It’s not personal. It’s a simple audience mismatch.

And it runs the same way in the other direction. Serve short-form to a long-form audience and it doesn’t land either. Someone who subscribed for your 20-minute breakdowns isn’t scrolling for a 30-second clip of you. They came for the sit-down version.

Two audiences that behave nothing alike. Give either one the wrong format and you get penalized twice. Once when they don’t watch, and again when the algorithm quietly updates its idea of who you are.

So this isn’t an anti-shorts position. It’s an audience problem.

If your priority is long-form, you should treat shorts as a supporting act. Two or three per week should do the trick as long as it’s tied to a long-form upload. One a day runs the risk of redefining your channel.

But there’s another key detail: make them for the shorts audience. A horizontal clip lifted out of your video, letterboxed into a vertical frame, is the worst of both worlds (unless you’re a podcast). It underperforms as a short and it muddies the signal on your main feed. I know this because we’ve tested it and seen consistent results across multiple channels.

I believe the clip channel is still a viable option. I bet you can easily name a half-dozen creators running a secondary shorts channel. But notice when they started - after they were already enormous with enough demand that a second channel quickly took off. Before that, a clip channel is just you funneling your efforts away from your primary goal.

A word on sponsor pressure, because short-form deal flow has ramped up noticeably this summer. I’m not going to tell you to leave money on the table. Take the deals. Just understand the risks and don’t let the deliverables quietly reshape your upload pattern into something you never chose.

If you want to know where you actually stand, this takes about two minutes. Open YouTube Studio, set it to the last 90 days, and look at where your new subscribers came from: shorts or long-form.

If most of them came from shorts, there’s your answer. That’s the audience YouTube is handing your next 15-minute video to, and that’s why it’s landing softer than it should.

Then look at the ratio. How many shorts went up against how many long-form videos? If you can’t say out loud what that ratio was supposed to accomplish, the algorithm can’t either.

None of this makes shorts the enemy. It just means you have to pick which audience you’re building, and then upload like you mean it.

Can I also just add that this is kinda depressing? This entire exercise makes me realize that we’re straying further away from what made YouTube beautiful to begin with: people uploading great content and easily reaching an audience organically - not having to worry about gaming an algorithm.

It’s really hard to keep up with what YouTube wants, and it’s even harder to change what you’re doing once you figure out what that is.

But that’s for another time.

Go get ’em.

Share

Leave a comment

A creator we work with had a video pop about a month ago. Roughly five times their usual numbers. It should be a time to celebrate, right?

Here’s what actually happened next: the three videos that followed felt like failures. They weren’t. They performed right at the channel’s baseline, maybe a touch above. But nobody was comparing them to the baseline anymore. The creator, the comments, and (most importantly) the manager/sponsors were comparing them to the spike.

That’s the trap. The viral number doesn’t just live in your analytics. It moves into your head and starts paying rent.

Here’s the message I’m consistently driving home:

I’d rather see you do four solid videos a month than one monster hit surrounded by flops.

Say your baseline is 30K views. Four videos at 30K and one video at 120K are the same total. Same watch time, roughly. But they are not remotely the same channel.

The four-30K channel is building return viewers, which is a highly underrated stat on the platform. It’s giving YouTube a reliable signal that this channel delivers, every time, to a predictable audience. The algorithm loves a safe bet. It distributes safe bets.

The one-120K channel taught the algorithm nothing except that one video, one time, connected with a bunch of strangers who mostly never came back. And it taught the creator something worse: that 120K is the new bar. Every future video gets measured against an outlier, and outliers, by definition, don’t repeat on command. Nailing that number gets harder every single time you try.

So the greenlighting process quietly changes. Instead of “what’s the best version of the thing my audience shows up for,” it becomes “what might pop like that one did.” You start going for it every time, but mostly strike out, which leads to an audience that no longer recognizes your channel’s value proposition.

I’m not anti-viral. If a video takes off, wonderful, take the W and try to figure out why. Sometimes a spike is genuinely the start of a new level, but I would caution you to avoid declaring a new baseline off of one data point.

Compounding math is the whole game. Consistent output at a repeatable level means more videos for the algorithm to test, more chances to convert a casual viewer into a regular, more reps improving the format itself. The spike gives you one great screenshot. The consistency gives you a business.

I know my production-company bias is showing here… of course the guy who builds repeatable pipelines thinks repeatable is the answer. But I came to this belief the honest way: by chasing outliers for a year and ending up smaller than when I started.

One thing worth doing this week: pull up your stats and cover the outlier - that’s your channel. That’s the number your decisions should be built on. If you can raise that floor by even 20%, you’ve done something meaningful and durable. The spike will come back around eventually. And when it does, it’ll be landing on a much higher floor.

Go get ‘em.

Share

Leave a comment

Three times in the past week and a half, on three completely different channels, the same thing happened. The less-produced thumbnail won.

Different niches, wildly different creators, no connection between them. The results were identical. The slick, highly produced thumbnail (two of them used AI elements) underperformed the more lo-fi version. One channel caught a decent amount of flack in the comments because of the use of AI. The lo-fi versions felt like they could have belonged on YouTube a decade ago, which is part of a thumbnail simplification trend we’re noticing platform-wide.

When the same signal shows up in three places in a short amount of time, it stops being a coincidence. So here’s the thinking: the “just use AI for thumbnails, it’s faster and cheaper” advice is starting to cost creators clicks.

Here’s why I’m not surprised, and apologies if my bias is showing…The whole pitch for AI thumbnails is speed. Ten options in the time it takes to brief a solid designer on one. While that might be true to a degree, speed is never the thing standing between us and a great thumbnail. It’s about connecting with the audience emotionally, and these days, we’re seeing that the use of AI in creative spaces is having an adverse effect.

A thumbnail has one job: win a split-second decision in a crowded feed, against ten other thumbnails, half of them on your exact topic. AI is very good at producing something that looks polished and very bad at producing something that looks chosen. It defaults to the average of everything it’s ever seen - generic, which is the one thing you can’t afford to be in a sea of competing content.

Add to that, the fact that people are looking for it, and you’re going to face push back when it’s spotted. You know exactly the kind of thumbnail I’m talking about, without naming names of course (beyond the thumbnails I shared above of course). The over-rendered, slightly-too-glossy AI look is becoming a tell, the same way a stock photo on a landing page screams inauthentic.

For any creator whose entire value is that a real person is behind the channel, looking synthetic is hurting the authority you’re working so hard to build.

I want to be careful here, because this isn’t a plea to stop using AI. We use AI all over our workflow, including to brainstorm thumbnail concepts before anyone opens Photoshop. The tool isn’t the problem. Shipping the tool’s first draft as your final answer is the problem. AI is a fantastic way to get to a starting point fast. It’s a terrible substitute for the human intuition to know what will resonate and make your audience stop scrolling.

So before your next upload, look at the thumbnail and ask, could this have come from anyone, or could it only have come from you? If the answer is anyone, then you made it faster, but you didn’t make it click.

Polish is cheap now. Everyone has it. The scarce thing is a thumbnail that looks like a human being made a decision.

Go get ‘em.

Leave a comment

We spent a while trying to fix the videos before we admitted the obvious: the videos were never the problem. The category was.

When everyone is doing the same thing, you’re not competing on quality. You’re competing on subscriber count. And you’ll lose to whoever’s bigger.

YouTube doesn’t really hand your video to your subscribers; it drops it into browse and suggested, next to a sea of other thumbnails, some on the exact same topic. When a viewer is choosing between five near-identical options, they don’t click the highest-quality one. They can’t see quality from the thumbnail. They click the channel they recognize, or the one with the bigger view count, because views and subs read as proof it’s worth their time when their time is already at a premium.

Which is why “just make better videos” is such a trap. Packaging aside - you can double the effort, sharpen the script, upgrade the graphics, and move the needle approximately nowhere because execution was never what held you back. The video was replaceable. A better version of a replaceable video is still replaceable.

The way out isn’t a better video. It’s a video only you could have made.

Same lesson, different delivery. Instead of “how to handle a pricing change” (a video 200 channels could shoot this afternoon) you tell the story of the pricing change you actually ran, the one that scared you and worked anyway. Same takeaway for the viewer. But now the lesson is welded to your specific experience, and nobody can clone it, because nobody else lived it.

The developer I mentioned is a good example. The pivot wasn’t “better dev tutorials.” It was talking-head videos about the real problems he hit building his own business. War stories that happen to teach the same things a tutorial would. Except no one without his exact résumé could make them. One of the titles we kicked around was “I lost 90% of my users — and why that’s a good thing.” A tutorial channel could cover that pricing lesson in the abstract. None of them could put their name on that sentence.

That’s the whole difference: educational content versus personal-narrative-as-educational. The first is a commodity, and commodities compete on size. The second is a moat. The lesson can be word-for-word identical. What changes is whether the video is interchangeable, and interchangeable is the thing quietly killing the YouTube middle class.

So run one quick check before your next upload. Name three things in the video that only you could have said: a specific number from your own work, a real decision you made, a mistake with your fingerprints on it. Three is the bar. If you can’t get there, you’ve made a video 200 other people could’ve made, and in that race, the only variable that matters is who showed up bigger.

You don’t want to win the size contest. You want to opt out of it.

Go get ‘em.

Leave a comment

This is the first newsletter I’ve ever written. So, I’ll take the opportunity to say welcome to the Hooked Newsletter and thanks for joining me on this brisk walk through the trenches of YouTube.

I had a call last week with a creator who’s been crashing out for a month. Mid-six-figure subscriber count, nearly a million views per video, unique style of creativity. He was convinced his content had gone stale based on feedback he was getting from the comments section. According to them, his topics were stale and he was burning his audience who were tired of hearing the same old story and themes.

Then we looked at the stats.

Eighty-plus percent of viewers on every recent video were brand new to the channel. Less than one percent were returning regulars. Fewer than 6% were actually subscribed to the channel. The thing he’d been losing sleep over was a problem to only a handful of people.

I see versions of this every week, so it’s worth saying out loud:

Your comments section is not your audience.

The people who comment are an exotic and vocal minority - they are, almost by definition, the least representative slice of the people you’re actually reaching. They are loud, and sometimes… not so nice.

Fun fact: in my 16+ years of working in YouTube, I’ve never left a comment. Ever.

YouTube doesn’t really distribute your videos to your subscribers. It distributes them to samples of new people, mostly through suggested and browse. A new test. Every time you upload. Your video shows up next to ten other thumbnails on someone’s feed. They click because the packaging worked, or they don’t. That’s the game.

Which means the creative anxiety I hear often is usually answering the wrong question - am I repeating myself, do they have a point, should I change everything based on a few complaints? The right question is whether the next sample of strangers will click and stay. They’ve never heard the bit before. They don’t know it’s your fourth video on the topic this year. They don’t care.

I’m not saying you should phone it in. Repetition for the sake of it is still bad content. But there’s a difference between making the same video twice and having a format you should keep running until the data says otherwise. Most creators who feel stuck are doing the second thing and beating themselves up like it’s the first.

A couple of things worth checking before you lay waste to a format you’re tired of:

Look at the actual returning-viewer percentage on your last ten videos. If it’s under 10%, the format fatigue story is mostly a story you’re telling yourself. Your regulars are barely the audience.

Read your top comments and your retention graph as two separate signals. The comments tell you what your most engaged 1% feels. The retention graph tells you what the other 99% did. When those two disagree the graph is the one that keeps the lights on.

And if you’re genuinely creatively done with a format, that’s a separate, real conversation worth having. But don’t let “my audience is sick of this” be the reason. Nine times out of ten, your audience just got here.

The hardest part of running a channel at scale is that the loudest feedback is usually the least useful, and the most valuable feedback is a chart on a screen that doesn’t talk back. The key is learning to weight those correctly. The risk of following the comments is rebuilding something that was working just fine.

Go get ‘em.

Leave a comment

Reach out anytime to talk about YouTube!

Visit our website to learn more.