Multiple YouTube Channels???

[TheFreshBiz]

I currently have one channel with multiple genres @ 1,300 subs I have been thinking about branching them off into separate channels because it has been hard to grow this way BUT I will say that I have not been as vested in my channels growth for the past year or so ultimately I think it comes down to being consistent in order to growth. Do what you do well and do it often. I don't think it is hard for people to gravitate to a multi genre channel because everyone has more than one interest. I will say that the level of quality must be consistent across all genres.

 

[WilliamRayWalters]

Here's three examples of channels that I know with 100% certainty have never advertised and have an extremely erratic release schedule.

Combined I get close to 3M views a day from three channels.

@Jack Decker Well, there's only one way that he could possibly know with 100% certainty that those channels never advertised. Coupled with the fact that he's mentioned in the past that he has 'Top Ten' type channels it wouldn't be that far a stretch to conclude that those are his channels (assuming he's not full of it, and personally I don't trust anyone on the internet lol).

Well, that little feud was mildly entertaining to read through. I had a feeling you guys would butt heads at some point. Youtuber1978 and I had a similar, if not much less heated discussion about it. Do I think channels can prosper without any promotion? Sure. If it has high search volume content and also quality content, people will search on Youtube, find the content, and stick around to watch for awhile. Eventually (theoretically) those videos would get enough volume from those search views to register with the algorithm that they lead to longer session times and get rewarded with suggested video placement. Like Youtuber1978 alluded to, the algorithm doesn't care about anything but the quality of the viewing session the content leads to.

That being said, I 100% do not believe that targeted promotion (especially promotion that is initiated on Youtube i.e. search advertising, shoutouts from very similar channels, etc) kills channel growth. Like Jack said, there are many examples of successful Youtubers who have said they've spent a ton of time promoting their channels in the beginning.

As far as upload schedule, I really think that Youtuber1978's view is slanted by the type of content on his own channel. For a vlogging channel it's very important to maintain that upload schedule because those channels get a much higher percentage of their subscriber base tuning in to watch their every video than other niches (top ten videos, for example). They literally are waiting for the next video to come out and the retention from those subs is through the roof. For a channel with 300,000 subs, those subs equals an automatic head start for any new video as far as high retention views are concerned. That head start can certainly expedite the video's placement in the suggested video sections of other videos, so why not keep the subscribers happy?[DOUBLEPOST=1442214278,1442213807][/DOUBLEPOST]

Here's three examples of channels that I know with 100% certainty have never advertised

Oh, one more thing. Through some very very cursory investigative work I've found that two of those three channels have indeed self promoted their early videos. One seemed to have been part of a multiple email send, and another was shamelessly self promoted on relevant sports forums in multiple posts by someone who appeared to have a vested interest. That's one video (the first video, I believe but not 100% sure) on two of those 3 channels that has promoted its video(s). I didn't bother with the 3rd channel.

Also, the email containing the video link linked directly to the Youtube video, not to a site that embedded the video. Is it possible I'm wrong and none of that was really promotion? Anything is possible. But that's not the way it seems.

 

[Jack Decker]

@Jack Decker Well, there's only one way that he could possibly know with 100% certainty that those channels never advertised. Coupled with the fact that he's mentioned in the past that he has 'Top Ten' type channels it wouldn't be that far a stretch to conclude that those are his channels (assuming he's not full of it, and personally I don't trust anyone on the internet lol).

Nah, he's a fraud. All hot air. He doesn't have a single "monster" channel. His "if they build it, they will come" strategy has never and will never work ... except in Hollywood movies.

Do I think channels can prosper without any promotion? Sure. If it has high search volume content and also quality content, people will search on Youtube, find the content, and stick around to watch for awhile. Eventually (theoretically) those videos would get enough volume from those search views to register with the algorithm that they lead to longer session times and get rewarded with suggested video placement.

And buying lottery tickets is then likewise a great retirement plan.

Like Youtuber1978 alluded to, the algorithm doesn't care about anything but the quality of the viewing session the content leads to.

No, it also takes in a lot of different factors. For example, bandwagoning. If others have clicked on another video afterwards, that video scores points and gets a higher ranking on the "related" video list. But early in a new video's life, its metadata plays a bigger role. And these are just two additional factors. There are very likely more.

As far as upload schedule, I really think that Youtuber1978's view is slanted by the type of content on his own channel.

I think you're assuming he actually has a successful channel. I don't. I think he's misrepresented his credentials here so newbies will believe in what he says. Again, I think he's a fraud.

 

[WilliamRayWalters]

No, it also takes in a lot of different factors. For example, bandwagoning. If others have clicked on another video afterwards, that video scores points and gets a higher ranking on the "related" video list. But early in a new video's life, its metadata plays a bigger role. And these are just two additional factors. There are very likely more.

You're right, I should have said 'primarily concerned with' and not 'only concerned with'. I get in trouble when I use absolutes.