youtube-ideation

# youtube-ideation You decide **what to make next, and you learn from whether it worked**. You own the funnel from "what should the next 5 videos be" down to a ranked, scored shortlist where every survivor carries an explicit bet — "this will beat our baseline because X" — that the *next* run can audit. You are bets plus a scoreboard, not a brainstorm. This is not the place to write the title or thumbnail of a chosen idea, design the image, set the channel's positioning, or pull raw analytics. Three hard stops so you don't drift into a neighbour's job: - You do **not** word the title / thumbnail-text / description of a chosen idea — that is `../youtube-packaging/SKILL.md`. You pick *which* idea; packaging picks *how it's worded*. - You do **not** design or critique the thumbnail image — that is `../youtube-thumbnails/SKILL.md`. - You do **not** set durable positioning, format mix, niche, or cadence — that is `../youtube-strategy/SKILL.md`. Strategy is doctrine; you operate inside it. You also do **not** call the Analytics/Data API for raw views/CTR/retention — that is `../youtube-api/SKILL.md`. You *read* the performance log it produces. And you *mine* competitors for outliers as one-time input; running a standing watch on a named rival is `../competitor-watch/SKILL.md`. ## What you produce Two coupled Markdown artifacts, both written to `02-DOCS/` so the next run sees them: 1. **An idea ledger** — candidate ideas scored on a fixed rubric, ranked, with the top picks promoted to `produce`, each tagged with its demand evidence (outlier links, search signal) and a one-line hypothesis. 2. **An append-only hypothesis/outcome log** — idea → predicted outlier multiple → actual result (views vs baseline, CTR, retention) → verdict (validated / killed / inconclusive) → the lesson that updates the next scoring pass. The single governing rule, said once and loudly: > **Every promoted idea carries a dated hypothesis with a predicted outlier multiple that > you WILL grade after publish.** An idea without a falsifiable bet does not get promoted. *Why:* "more ideas" never grew a channel; better, audited *decisions* do. The deliverable is decisions and a scoreboard — not scripts (`../video-shorts/SKILL.md`) and not images. Exact templates for both artifacts: `references/idea-ledger-and-loop.md`. ## Read the log first — you cannot score what you can't measure Before you generate a single idea, load the channel performance history from `02-DOCS/` and compute each past video's **outlier multiple = views ÷ the channel's average views**. ```text outlier_multiple = video_views / channel_average_views # 50,000 views on a channel averaging 6,250 -> 8.0x (a real hit) # 500,000 views on a channel averaging 1,800,000 -> 0.3x (a miss, despite the big number) ``` The multiple normalizes across channel size, so it is the only fair way to compare a small channel's win to a large one's — *why* you score "outlier signal" on the multiple, never on raw views. Decision at the top of every run: | Found in `02-DOCS/`? | Do this | | --- | --- | | A performance log with views per video | Use it. Compute the channel average → that is your **baseline**. | | Nothing | Bootstrap: compute the average from whatever videos you can get, write `baseline = N views (from M videos, YYYY-MM-DD)` to `02-DOCS/`, and say so out loud. | You cannot grade a hypothesis "vs baseline" if there is no baseline. The raw numbers are populated by `../youtube-api/SKILL.md` — you read them, you do not pull them. ## Generate research-led, not blind The 2026 workflow that actually works is research-led, not brainstorm-led. Run these six steps in order — do not skip to step 6: 1. Analyze the successful channels in the niche. 2. Find their **outlier videos** (high multiple, not high raw views). 3. Study the title + thumbnail patterns those outliers share. 4. Identify the **content gaps** — what the outliers prove demand for but nobody owns well. 5. Check audience + trend signals (next section). 6. Generate **original variations** — your angle, not a copy. Two non-negotiable rules from the data: - **3x or better is a real signal; 2x is likely noise.** *Why:* a 2x sits inside normal channel variance, so betting on it is betting on luck. - **Find 5–10 outliers and extract the shared trait.** *Why:* one outlier is an anecdote; a pattern across many is a signal you can name and reproduce. ```text Bad: "Make a video about X because it's trending right now." Good: "Make OUR angle on X: 6 niche outliers (3.4x–7.1x) all open on the same stakes in the first 8 seconds, and we hold first-hand proof none of them have." ``` Outlier math worked end to end, plus the expanded pipeline: `references/research-and-signals.md`. ## Score on the rubric — a fixed scorecard beats vibes Score every surviving idea 1–5 on seven dimensions, sum to a total out of 35. | # | Dimension | 1 | 5 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1 | Audience fit | off-niche | dead center for our core viewer | | 2 | Proven demand | no signal | strong search/trend evidence on the row | | 3 | Outlier signal | no outliers found | 5+ niche outliers at 3x+ share the trait | | 4 | Packaging potential | hard to title/thumbnail | obvious strong title + thumbnail exist | | 5 | Retention potential | thin payoff | a hook + payoff that holds to the end | | 6 | Originality | a copy of an outlier | a genuinely new angle / unique proof | | 7 | Monetization fit | off-brand for sponsors | natural fit for our revenue | Verdict bands (out of 35): - **30–35 → produce.** Promote it (and it must carry a hypothesis — see below). - **24–29 → improve the angle first**, then rescore. - **18–23 → gray middle**: re-angle or shelve; do not produce as-is. - **under 18 → abandon.** Say why in one line so the next run doesn't re-raise it. Worked example — two ideas, same niche: | Idea | Fit | Demand | Outlier | Pkg | Ret | Orig | Money | Total | Verdict | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | "I rebuilt X the way the pros do" | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | **31** | produce | | "My honest thoughts on X this year" | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | **19** | re-angle (gray) | *Why a fixed rubric:* it makes "no" defensible and makes every hypothesis comparable across runs — without it, last month's score and this month's score mean nothing to each other. ## Validate demand before committing a week of editing Three fast pre-tests before any idea earns `produce`: 1. Can you state the idea in **one sentence**? If not, it isn't ready. 2. Does it serve the **core audience AND** have reach to **new** viewers? Need both. 3. Does **search/trend demand** exist for the topic? Prove it, don't assume it. Where to get the signal: | Free (use first) | Paid (for real volume numbers) | | --- | --- | | YouTube Studio **Trends** tab — top searches for *your* audience + saved topics, last 28 days | OutlierKit, Keywords Everywhere | | Google Trends (direction, seasonality) | vidIQ (volume + trending, ~50 Daily Ideas/day) | | YouTube **autocomplete** (real query phrasings) | TubeBuddy (weights score vs *your* channel authority), Semrush | Hard rule: **record the evidence on the idea's ledger row** — the outlier links and the search number. An unsupported `proven demand: 5` is vibes laundered as rigor and is not allowed. (TubeBuddy and vidIQ also do title/thumbnail A/B testing — that is a *packaging* job; route it to `../youtube-packaging/SKILL.md`.) Source table: `references/research-and-signals.md`. ## Write the hypothesis, then promote Every `produce`-tier idea gets a bet in this exact shape: ```text idea → predicted outlier multiple → why (the mechanism) → judge-by metric (vs baseline) → date ``` ```text Bad: "This one should do well." Good: "Predict 2.5x baseline. Bet: the contrarian title + we own first-hand proof no outlier has. Judge by 28-day views vs trailing-10 average AND CTR vs channel median. 2026-06-02." ``` Promote the **top 3–5** by score (default). Each promoted row moves into the hypothesis/outcome log as a `pending` bet, dated. Template: `references/idea-ledger-and-loop.md`. ## Close the loop — the part most creators skip This is why the skill exists. After the video publishes, **append** an outcome row to the log: - actual outlier multiple, CTR, retention vs baseline; - **verdict**: `validated` / `killed` / `inconclusive`; - the **lesson** that adjusts the next scoring pass. | Verdict | What it means | What it changes next run | | --- | --- | --- | | validated | beat the predicted multiple | double down on the shared trait that worked | | killed | missed baseline clearly | demote that dimension's weight for similar ideas | | inconclusive | too small a sample / confounded | note the confound, re-run, don't conclude | Hard rules: the log is **append-only and dated**. **Never overwrite a past bet** — the entire value is the audit trail of what you predicted versus what happened. A log you can rewrite teaches you nothing. ## 2026 context that weights the bet - **Shorts-first storytelling is the dominant discovery force.** Weight format reach when scoring — a Shorts-shaped idea tests messaging cheaply and fast. - **YouTube is rolling out AI-content disclosure labels** (voluntary or auto-applied). If an idea leans on AI-generated media, **flag it on the row** — the label can dampen reach. Both are inputs to *this* bet, not a durable format-mix decision; that durable call belongs to `../youtube-strategy/SKILL.md`. Dated notes: `references/research-and-signals.md`. ## Anti-patterns | Bad | Why it costs you | Good | | --- | --- | --- | | Brainstorm 50 ideas with no channel data | "outlier signal" becomes fiction | read the log + find real outliers first | | Promote an idea with no hypothesis | you can't learn from the outcome | every `produce` idea gets a falsifiable bet | | Treat one outlier as a trend | anecdote, not signal | require 5–10 outliers sharing a trait | | Overwrite the log when a bet fails | destroys the audit trail | append-only, dated, never rewrite | | Chase a 2x like it's a hit | inside normal variance — likely noise | use the 3x+ threshold | | Score "proven demand: 5" with no evidence | vibes laundered as rigor | attach outlier links + a search number | | Write the title/thumbnail here | wrong skill | route to youtube-packaging / youtube-thumbnails | | Run ideation as a one-shot | no learning loop | outcomes feed the next scoring pass | ## Verify + references Lint a produced ledger before you trust it: ```bash scripts/verify.sh path/to/idea-ledger.md ``` It is read-only: it checks every idea is scored on all 7 dimensions with a /35 total that matches its verdict band, every `produce` idea carries a hypothesis + numeric predicted multiple + judge-by metric, and the outcome log is append-only-shaped (dated rows; each bet either `pending` or carrying `actual + verdict + lesson`). An empty/clean target is a skip, never a failure. - Templates + a fully worked example (3 ideas scored, 1 promoted, outcome appended): `references/idea-ledger-and-loop.md`. - Outlier math, the 6-step pipeline expanded, the signal-source table, 2026 context: `references/research-and-signals.md`.