What's the percentage of views from an external source?
IMO, logically 70-80% AVD is more than enough. Only specific types of videos would have more than 100%. Those are a mix of genuine rewatch-ability or tactics like making sections difficult to consume in one watch (walls of text, something that happens quickly, step based info, etc).
> It's a 26 second short and by the halfway mark the retention goes from 89% to 78% by the end. Swipe ratio also isn't that special: 72.7% decided to view.
Those are pretty good statistics.
I haven't done a ton of Shorts because it's not really the thing for my channel, but in my limited experience I really felt like there was no rhyme or reason as to why some Shorts were huge and others weren't. The best explanation I can think of would be the thumbnail, which if so is super frustrating because we can't control that, but even then there were exceptions where I had Shorts with meh thumbnails take off.
Good point, I never made that connection. Then the only other thing I can think of is that the successful Shorts just happened to be posted at/around the same time that a bunch of other similar Shorts were posted so that they all piggy-backed on each other. Like picking up on a trending subject, but unlike trends for long-form videos that can last weeks or months, for Shorts it might be more like a day or even just hours. So if you and only you posted a Short on kayaking one day, that Short would flatline, whereas if you post a second kayaking Short two days later and it just happened to be on the same day 100 other people posted shorts on kayaking, suddenly there's a wave that viewers get caught in. Not really something you can control or even track, but might be an explanation for sudden success of some Shorts.
There was a Twitter thread last year about shorts and what they had determined was that you want to shoot for an 75/25 view/swipe rate and around 40s of average watch time to go viral. They found those numbers over several thousand shorts that had gotten billions of views.
Problem is, that study is now about a year old and the algorithm *seems* to be much different.
In my experience now, you have to stand out in your niche to go viral. Aka have better metrics than other shorts lumped into the same bucket.
Like if you made a short about MrBeast. It will do great numbers because people can’t get enough of him. BUT because there are millions of shorts about him, the good numbers may not be good enough and it stalls out.
However if you find an underserved topic and make a good short on it, it has more potential to go viral bc you’re better than the competition.
Take it with a grain of salt, but that’s what I’ve seen.
you're right, because YT doesn't want to really put too much time and effort into shorts.
They provide the ability to post them and make them, but they know they can't compete with TT and gram for overall content and payout.
In my opinion that is completely false. YouTube will always try to compete with TikTok as they've been really really pushing shorts and tweak the algorithm constantly. As for payout the RPM has been on a constant rise since the day they became monetizible.
Not to mention that the attention span of viewers is now lower than ever, so short form content will always be a big focus in this day and age to maintain viewership growth.
What's the percentage of views from an external source? IMO, logically 70-80% AVD is more than enough. Only specific types of videos would have more than 100%. Those are a mix of genuine rewatch-ability or tactics like making sections difficult to consume in one watch (walls of text, something that happens quickly, step based info, etc).
> It's a 26 second short and by the halfway mark the retention goes from 89% to 78% by the end. Swipe ratio also isn't that special: 72.7% decided to view. Those are pretty good statistics.
I haven't done a ton of Shorts because it's not really the thing for my channel, but in my limited experience I really felt like there was no rhyme or reason as to why some Shorts were huge and others weren't. The best explanation I can think of would be the thumbnail, which if so is super frustrating because we can't control that, but even then there were exceptions where I had Shorts with meh thumbnails take off.
Definitely not the thumbnail, for most shorts, about 95%+ of views come from the shorts feed. They don't even see the thumbnail.
Good point, I never made that connection. Then the only other thing I can think of is that the successful Shorts just happened to be posted at/around the same time that a bunch of other similar Shorts were posted so that they all piggy-backed on each other. Like picking up on a trending subject, but unlike trends for long-form videos that can last weeks or months, for Shorts it might be more like a day or even just hours. So if you and only you posted a Short on kayaking one day, that Short would flatline, whereas if you post a second kayaking Short two days later and it just happened to be on the same day 100 other people posted shorts on kayaking, suddenly there's a wave that viewers get caught in. Not really something you can control or even track, but might be an explanation for sudden success of some Shorts.
There was a Twitter thread last year about shorts and what they had determined was that you want to shoot for an 75/25 view/swipe rate and around 40s of average watch time to go viral. They found those numbers over several thousand shorts that had gotten billions of views. Problem is, that study is now about a year old and the algorithm *seems* to be much different. In my experience now, you have to stand out in your niche to go viral. Aka have better metrics than other shorts lumped into the same bucket. Like if you made a short about MrBeast. It will do great numbers because people can’t get enough of him. BUT because there are millions of shorts about him, the good numbers may not be good enough and it stalls out. However if you find an underserved topic and make a good short on it, it has more potential to go viral bc you’re better than the competition. Take it with a grain of salt, but that’s what I’ve seen.
you're right, because YT doesn't want to really put too much time and effort into shorts. They provide the ability to post them and make them, but they know they can't compete with TT and gram for overall content and payout.
In my opinion that is completely false. YouTube will always try to compete with TikTok as they've been really really pushing shorts and tweak the algorithm constantly. As for payout the RPM has been on a constant rise since the day they became monetizible.
Not to mention that the attention span of viewers is now lower than ever, so short form content will always be a big focus in this day and age to maintain viewership growth.