Research · 6 posts · what we measured, in plain English

We test our own metrics.

And publish it when they’re wrong.

Method · 7 September 2026

We shuffled 30,000 creators at random

Rival advertisers are supposed to hire different kinds of creator. We checked 2,725 of them, then dealt the same creators back out at random. Between 65% and 93% of the difference between advertisers turned out to be luck.8 min read
of the difference between advertisers was luck65–93%depending on the measure, from the post
Disclosure · 1 September 2026

The box nobody ticks

YouTube gives creators a checkbox that says 'this video contains paid promotion'. Across 227,632 sponsored videos, we counted how often it is used. For commission deals: less than one time in twelve.

6 min read
Creator data · 1 September 2026

Does a brand book you twice?

Half of real paid creator relationships never happen again. We counted 108,433 of them — and found that the bigger the creator, the only slightly better the odds.

7 min read
Measurement · 31 August 2026

The fake-follower test that points backwards

Almost everyone uses views-per-subscriber to spot a bought audience. We checked it against 1,310 channels YouTube actually cleaned up. It does worse than guessing — and there is a simple reason why.

7 min read
Measurement · 31 August 2026

What actually predicts a fake audience

Six popular ways to spot a fake audience, put through the same test. Three point the wrong way, one has quietly stopped working, and one is genuinely good.

6 min read
Creator data · 31 August 2026

Small creators don't engage better

Brands pay a premium for small creators because their audiences supposedly react more. Across 143,000 channels, mostly they do not — and the exceptions depend entirely on the subject.

6 min read

Every post links the data it was measured on.