This was an interesting newsletter piece from the Publish Press. There is a lot to unpack with these findings. It may even be contrary to our anecdotal experiences. Some things surprised me in this piece. Interestingly, it still seems to paint a positive picture for long-form content. I should point out that this info originally came from Paddy Galloway's Twitter feed.
===============
===============
Last week, business creator Paddy Galloway and YouTube analyst Chris Gileta released a YouTube Shorts study designed to answer some big creator questions: How long should Shorts be? How do Shorts help with growth? And of course, how much money are people making with Shorts? |
The sample size: 5,400 Shorts from 33 YouTube channels across different niches. |
What they found: Shorts aren’t a silver bullet for growth (at least not compared to their longform counterparts), but they can still be worth it for certain creators. Some main takeaways → |
Like channel videos, Shorts should aim to hold the viewerΓÇÖs attention as long as possible. Longer videos tend to do that best. |
|
Longform videos convert subscribers better than Shorts do. |
|
The average revenue per 1,000 views (aka RPM) is 6 cents for Shorts. |
|
Last edited: