Executive Summary of YouTube Optimization

Transcript

1. Whiteglove Optimization October 2015 – January 2016 // Audience – Marketing – SEO
2. Overview Total Channels Optimized + Studied 11 Goal Increase views from both Search and Suggested Video to the channels Strategy Add Standardized Metadata based on keyword research to all new and existing videos in a given series Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO
3. How We Did It Titles Episode Description 1 | Episode Description 2 | Video Title – Channel Name Descriptions 1. Episode synopsis 2. Subscribe and playlist links 3. External links 4. Series overview 5. Character list 6. About Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO Tags
4. Question: How did the success of the Whiteglove Optimization impact the Maker network? Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO
5. Total Search + Suggested Views Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO 3,179,800 after optimization, from previous 4-week period 13.7% Increase
6. That translates into a gain of Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO Total Hours Invested: 383 Revenue Earned / Hour: $1.50 $575
7. Implementation Performance Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO Total Daily Search Views Gained 43,350 Total Daily Suggested Views Gained 340,000 Total Daily Views Gained 383,350
8. Aggregate Results – Search Views Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9. Aggregate Results – Suggested Views Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
10. Case Study 1: BabyTeeth4 Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO Search • Compared with the 4-week period before optimization, post-optimization: • Daily views from search increased 37%, from 29.8K to 40.8K • BabyTeeth4 has published 1 video/day except 11/23, 1/4 and 1/6 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 11/5/15 11/7/15 11/9/15 11/11/15 11/13/15 11/15/15 11/17/15 11/19/15 11/21/15 11/23/15 11/25/15 11/27/15 11/29/15 12/1/15 12/3/15 12/5/15 12/7/15 12/9/15 12/11/15 12/13/15 12/15/15 12/17/15 12/19/15 12/21/15 12/23/15 12/25/15 12/27/15 12/29/15 12/31/15 1/2/16 1/4/16 1/6/16 +37% Metadata Implemented
11. Case Study 1: BabyTeeth4, cont. Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO Suggested • Compared with the 4-week period before optimization, post-optimization: • Daily views from suggested video increased 20.3%, from 1.07M to 1.29M +20.3% 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 1,600,000 1,800,000 11/5/15 11/7/15 11/9/15 11/11/15 11/13/15 11/15/15 11/17/15 11/19/15 11/21/15 11/23/15 11/25/15 11/27/15 11/29/15 12/1/15 12/3/15 12/5/15 12/7/15 12/9/15 12/11/15 12/13/15 12/15/15 12/17/15 12/19/15 12/21/15 12/23/15 12/25/15 12/27/15 12/29/15 12/31/15 1/2/16 1/4/16 1/6/16 Metadata Implemented
12. Case Study 2: Konas2002 Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO Search • Compared with the 4-week period before optimization, post-optimization: • Daily views from search increased 65%, from 2.2K to 3.7K • Konas2002 has published at least 1 video/week +65% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 9/21/15 9/23/15 9/25/15 9/27/15 9/29/15 10/1/15 10/3/15 10/5/15 10/7/15 10/9/15 10/11/15 10/13/15 10/15/15 10/17/15 10/19/15 10/21/15 10/23/15 10/25/15 10/27/15 10/29/15 10/31/15 11/2/15 11/4/15 11/6/15 11/8/15 11/10/15 11/12/15 11/14/15 11/16/15 11/18/15 11/20/15 11/22/15 11/24/15 Metadata Implemented
13. Case Study 2: Konas2002, con’t. Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO Suggested • Compared with the 4-week period before optimization, post-optimization: • Daily views from search increased 37%, from 80.6K to 106K +32% 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 9/21/15 9/23/15 9/25/15 9/27/15 9/29/15 10/1/15 10/3/15 10/5/15 10/7/15 10/9/15 10/11/15 10/13/15 10/15/15 10/17/15 10/19/15 10/21/15 10/23/15 10/25/15 10/27/15 10/29/15 10/31/15 11/2/15 11/4/15 11/6/15 11/8/15 11/10/15 11/12/15 11/14/15 11/16/15 11/18/15 11/20/15 11/22/15 11/24/15 Metadata Implemented
14. Question: What makes the best possible candidate for a whiteglove implementation? Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO
15. Takeaway: The best possible candidates will meet these criteria: The talent is willing to participate Metadata is either nonexistent or can be greatly improved The talent continues to upload content consistently The talent continues to implement metadata recommendations Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO
16. Question: How can we continue this success? Should we do this again? Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO
17. Takeaway: Consistent, robust metadata implementation + regular upload behavior We learned that these two pieces combined can drive a channel’s total views from both search and suggested sources. We also learned that it is critically important for creators to continue this process on their own for future gains. We recommend encouraging these best practices for creators in the Maker network. Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO
18. Takeaways: To scale appropriately, we would need to automate the implementation We need more efficient and scalable technology tools to drive even greater returns. Not all talent participated in the Whiteglove Optimization Some creators didn’t “buy in” to this experiment, and only a small fraction of creators within the network were optimized. Whiteglove Optimization // Audience – Marketing – SEO