Why my Best-Performing Video on YouTube has the Worst-Looking Analytics...?

Paddy Galloway or Hayden Hillier-Smith would probably lose their minds looking at my retention graph + the 2-minute cold intro. But, against all conventional "YouTube rules," this video has taken off. Why?

Here are some of my (maybe controversial) Ideas that I want to dive deeper into:

1. YouTube's analytics are way out of date.

The limited feedback that I received on this video sums up to be "Your audience is choosing to watch this more, so we're pushing it out to new audiences."

But, when cross-checked with the numerical data I have, it doesn't seem very convincing... and if anything, this feedback makes it even more confusing as a creator trying to better understand how my channel is doing.

YouTube's explanation for the video's performance:

The clickthrough rate for this video is 8.8% instead of the regular 7.4%-8.4%. In addition to this, the average view duration is 3:53 on a 15-minute video (0:41 less than usual).]

The CTR has a very slim marginal increase but when combined with the fact that I've had other recent videos with higher CTR + watch time that have performed worse, it makes me scratch my head...

"Engagement" on my last 3 videos:

Questions that come to mind:

• What's the point of average view duration if videos are of different lengths?
• Does YouTube want creators to make videos of the same length?
• The down arrow on the first video for average view duration makes me feel bad about the video, but it has a higher average watch time than the videos with higher average view duration... which is more important?
• Average view duration seems like an irrelevant metric... But, if YouTube wants creators to make longer videos, then I think it has a subconscious effect that is definitely working

3. How to use CPIs to "redefine a video's success"

I highly recommend you go through and read through some of the comments on this video:

In the past 4 years, I don't think I've ever received so many heartfelt comments on a video. I often talk about using CPIs (community performance indicators) as a better way to measure the "success" of a video.

• How many people sent you a dm (or even a letter!) after watching your video?
• How many people sent your video to a friend after watching it?
• How many people put a photo of them watching your video on their story and tagged you?

These more unconventional ways of redefining the "success" of a video feel a lot more human-centered (as opposed to treating your audience like lab rats...).

Most people watch YouTube from afar and don't comment on videos. Usually a *????* is a nice indicator, but a comment nowadays feels above and beyond.

Creating a space where people want to open up, start a dialogue, and be vulnerable, is really special. Unfortunately, YouTube's comment section is designed in a way that feels dead (unlike Twitter where it feels like you're engaging in a real-time conversation).

To me, these comments, stories, and mini-essays highlight the strong touchpoints of emotional reliability, which seem to be the only factor that could explain this video's performance. But, what part of the YouTube back-end is displaying this as important or as a KPI in the video's success?

4. Why doesn't YouTube share more feedback?

Evidently, the comments on this video are longer than usual and the sentiment in them is much more impactful. It would be cool to see YouTube give notes like "This video resonated with more of your audience, leading to more engagement, and more reach" -- it often feels like numbers only tell one small part of the story, and as someone trying to create meaningful content, it feels like all YouTube does is put you in a box.

Ex: under the "engagement tab" this is pretty much all I see:

Questions that come to mind:

• What part of this section highlights the community?
• What part of this feels human?
• Where is the qualitative data?

Retention only paints one part of the picture. It makes me wonder what part of my audience watches the whole way through v.s what portion of people click off right away?

• Are the 40% of people who aren't watching after the first 30-seconds factored into the average percentage viewed?
• Why can't I separate watch time/retention between subscribers and non-subscribers
• Even further, why can't I separate watch time between people who've been subscribed for the past week v.s. month, 6-months, year, 2 years, etc...
• How am I able to distinguish the data between people I want to create for v.s. new viewers who don't know me yet?

My Conclusion:

There are so many improvements that could be made to the creator experience on YouTube. From the toxic _/10 system to the lack of tools to build community, it makes me question the future of creator culture on this platform.

There are easy explanations for many of the questions I've thrown out from a business perspective. But, if we take our heads out of the never-ending quarterly metric system and look towards the future we're trying to build, I think these conversations are more important than ever.

How does YouTube want to contribute to the future of humanity? At what point does it draw the line between ethics and profits? Will it ever choose to prioritize community and positive sentiment over short-term profit? How do the metrics chosen to show creators effect the content created on the platform? What effect does this metric-driven content have on humans, kids, teens, and adults?

No matter which way you look at it, it seems like the incentive structures are broken from every angle. But, I'm optimistic that people will do the right thing.

If you've read all the way through my first article, thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to absorb my ideas! They are fresh, not fully thought through, but nonetheless, they're better out in the world than in my head.

Please feel free to share your own -- I welcome and encourage any feedback, perspectives, or ideas you have to share!

Cheers,

Max (: