Do Faces Help YouTube Thumbnails? Here’s What The Data Says via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

A claim about YouTube thumbnails is getting attention on X: that showing your face is “probably killing your views,” and that removing yourself will make click-through rates jump.

Nate Curtiss, Head of Content at 1of10 Media, pushed back, calling that kind of advice too absolute and pointing to a dataset that suggests the answer is more situational.

The dispute matters because thumbnail advice often gets reduced to rules. YouTube’s own product signals suggest the platform is trying to reward what keeps viewers watching, not whatever earns the fastest click.

Where The “Remove Your Face” Claim Comes From

In a recent post, vidIQ suggested that unless you’re already well-known, people click for ideas rather than creators, and that removing your face from thumbnails can raise CTR.

Believe it or not, your face in the thumbnail is probably killing your views.

Unless you’re already famous, people click for IDEAS, not creators.

Test removing yourself. Your CTR will likely spike.

— vidIQ (@vidIQ) December 3, 2025

Curtiss responded by calling the claim unsupported, and linked to highlights from a long-form report based on a sample of high-performing YouTube videos.

This is a pretty baseless claim lol.

We analyzed over 300,000 viral videos from 2025 to find the real answer to:

Do faces matter in thumbnails?

TLDR: It depends on your niche, your format, and how many faces you use.

1. Overall, thumbnails with faces and without faces… https://t.co/qywBOKsSMv pic.twitter.com/LTbKNlm6MJ

— Nate Curtiss (@natecurtiss_yt) December 21, 2025

The debate is one side arguing faces distract from the idea, while the other argues faces can help or hurt depending on what you publish and who you publish for.

What The Data Says About Faces In Thumbnails

The report Curtiss linked to describes a dataset of more than 300,000 “viral” YouTube videos from 2025, spanning tens of thousands of channels. It defines “outlier” performance using an “Outlier Score,” calculated as a high-performing video’s views relative to the channel’s median views.

On faces specifically, the report’s top finding is that thumbnails with faces and thumbnails without faces perform similarly, even though faces appear on a large share of videos in the sample.

The differences show up when the report breaks down the data:

• In its channel-size breakdown, it finds that adding a face only helped channels above a certain subscriber threshold, and even then the lift was modest.
• In its niche segmentation, it finds that some categories performed better with faces while others performed worse. Finance is listed among the niches that performed better with faces, while Business is listed among the niches that performed worse.
• It also reports that thumbnails featuring multiple faces performed best compared to single-face thumbnails.

What YouTube Says About Faces In Thumbnails

Even if a thumbnail change increases CTR, YouTube’s own tooling suggests the algorithm is optimizing for what happens after the click.

In a YouTube blog post, Creator Liaison Rene Ritchie explains that the thumbnail testing tool runs until one variant achieves a higher percentage of watch time.

He also explains why results are returned as watch time rather than separate CTR and retention metrics, describing watch time as incorporating both the click and the ability to keep viewers watching.

Ritchie writes:

“Thumbnail Test & Compare returns watch time rather than separate metrics on click-through rate (CTR) and retention (AVP), because watch time includes both! You have to click to watch and you have to retain to build up time. If you over-index on CTR, it could become click-bait, which could tank retention, and hurt performance. This way, the tool helps build good habits — thumbnails that make a promise and videos that deliver on it!”

This helps explain why CTR-based thumbnail advice can be incomplete. A thumbnail that boosts clicks but leads to shorter viewing may not win in YouTube’s testing tool.

YouTube is leaning into A/B testing as a workflow inside Studio. In a separate YouTube blog post about new Studio features, YouTube describes how you can test and compare up to three titles and thumbnails per video.

The “Who” Matters: Subscribers vs. Strangers

YouTube’s Help Center suggests thinking about audience segments, such as new, casual, and regular viewers. Then adapt your content strategy for each group rather than treat all viewers the same.

YouTube suggests thinking about who you’re trying to reach. Content aimed at subscribers can lean on familiar cues, while content aimed at casual viewers may need more universally readable actions or emotions.

That aligns with the report’s finding that faces helped larger channels more than smaller ones, which could reflect stronger audience familiarity.

What This Means

The practical takeaway is not to “put your face in every thumbnail” or “go faceless.”

The data suggests faces are common and, on average, not dramatically different from no-face thumbnails. The interesting part is the segmentation: some topics appear to benefit from faces more than others, and multiple faces may generate more interest than a single reaction shot.

YouTube’s testing design keeps pulling the conversation back to viewer outcomes. Clicks matter, but so does whether the thumbnail matches the video and earns watch time once someone lands.

YouTube’s product team describes this as “Packaging,” which is a concept that treats the title, thumbnail, and the first 30 seconds of the video as a single unit.

On mobile, where videos often auto-play, the face in the thumbnail should naturally transition into the video’s intro. If the emotional cue in the thumbnail doesn’t match the opening of the video, it can hurt early retention.

Looking Ahead

This debate keeps resurfacing because creators want simple rules, and YouTube performance rarely works that way.

The debate overlooks an important point that top creators like MrBeast emphasize. It’s more about how you show your face than whether you show it at all.

MrBeast previously mentioned that changing how he appears in thumbnails, like switching to closed-mouth expressions, increased watch time in his tests.

The 1of10 data supports the idea that faces in thumbnails aren’t a blanket rule. Results can vary by topic, format, and audience expectations.

A better way to look at it is fit. Faces can help signal trust, identity, or emotion, but they can also compete with the subject of the video depending on what you publish.

With YouTube adding more testing to Studio, you may get better results by validating thumbnail decisions against watch-time outcomes instead of relying on one-size-fits-all advice.

Featured Image: T. Schneider/Shutterstock

YouTube AI Enforcement Questioned As Channels Get Restored via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

YouTube creators are raising concerns about the platform’s AI-driven moderation system. Multiple accounts describe sudden channel terminations for “spam, deceptive practices and scams,” followed by rapid appeal rejections with templated responses.

In some cases, channels have been restored only after the creator generated attention on X or Reddit. YouTube’s message to creators states the company has “not identified any widespread issues” with channel terminations and says only “a small percentage” of enforcement actions are reversed.

There’s a gap between YouTube’s position and creator experiences that’s driving a debate.

What Creators Are Reporting

The pattern appearing across X and Reddit threads follows a similar sequence.

Channels receive termination notices citing “spam, deceptive practices and scams.” Appeals get rejected within hours, sometimes minutes, with generic language. When channels are restored, creators say they receive no explanation of what triggered the ban or how to prevent future issues.

One documented case comes from YouTube creator “Chase Car,” who runs an EV news channel. In a detailed post on r/YouTubeCreators, they describe a sequence where their channel was demonetized by an automated system, cleared by a human reviewer, then terminated months later for spam.

The creator says they escalated the case to an EU-certified dispute body under the Digital Services Act. According to their account, the decision found the termination “was not rightful.” As of their most recent update, YouTube had not acted on the ruling.

Channels Restored After Public Attention

A subset of terminated channels have been reinstated after their cases gained visibility on social media.

Film analysis channel Final Verdict shared a thread documenting a sudden spam-related termination and later reinstatement after posts on X gained traction.

True crime channel The Dark Archive had their channel removed and later restored after tagging TeamYouTube publicly.

Streamer ProkoTV said their channel was restricted from live streaming after a spam warning. TeamYouTube later acknowledged an error and restored access.

These reversals confirm that some enforcement actions are incorrect by YouTube’s own standards. They also suggest that escalation on X can function as a parallel appeal route.

YouTube Acknowledges Some Errors

In a few cases, YouTube or its representatives have publicly admitted mistakes.

Dexerto reported on a creator whose 100,000-plus subscriber channel was banned over a comment they wrote on a different account at age 13. YouTube eventually apologized, telling the creator the ban “was a mistake on our end.”

Tech YouTuber Enderman, with 350,000 subscribers, said an automated system shut down their channel after linking it to an unrelated banned account. Dexerto highlighted the case after it spread on X.

YouTube’s Official Position

YouTube frames its enforcement differently than creators describe.

The company’s spam, deceptive practices, and scams policy explains why it takes action on fraud, impersonation, fake engagement, and misleading metadata. The policy notes that YouTube may act at the channel level if an account exists “primarily” to violate rules.

In a FAQ post, YouTube says the “vast majority” of terminations are upheld on appeal. The company says it’s “confident” in its processes while acknowledging “a handful” of incorrect terminations that were later reversed.

YouTube also offers a “Second Chances” pilot program that allows some creators to start new channels if they meet specific criteria and were terminated more than a year ago. The program doesn’t restore lost videos or subscribers.

YouTube’s CEO recently indicated the company plans to expand AI moderation tools. In an interview with Time, he said YouTube will proceed with expanded AI enforcement despite creator concerns.

Why This Matters

If you rely on YouTube as a core channel, these accounts raise practical concerns. A channel termination removes your entire presence, including subscribers and revenue potential. When appeals feel automated, you have limited visibility into what triggered the enforcement.

The Chase Car timeline shows an AI system can overturn a positive human verdict months later. Creators without large followings may have fewer options for escalation if formal appeals fail.

Looking Ahead

The EU’s Digital Services Act gives European users access to certified dispute bodies for moderation decisions. The Chase Car case could test how platforms respond to unfavorable rulings under that system.

YouTube says its appeals process is the correct channel for enforcement disputes. The company has not announced changes to its moderation approach in response to creator complaints.

Monitor YouTube’s official help community for any updates to appeal procedures or policy clarifications.

Featured Image: T. Schneider/Shutterstock

YouTube Shorts Algorithm May Now Favor Fresh Over Evergreen via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

YouTube appears to have changed how it recommends Shorts, according to analysts who work with some of the platform’s largest channels. The shift reportedly began in mid-September and deprioritizes videos older than roughly 30 days, favoring more recent uploads.

Mario Joos, a retention strategist who works with MrBeast, Stokes Twins, and Alan’s Universe, first identified the pattern after weeks of trying to explain a broad dip in performance across his clients. Dot Esports reports that Joos analyzed data across channels with 100 million to one billion monthly views and found a consistent drop in impressions for older Shorts.

What The Data Shows

Joos says YouTube has “changed the short-form content algorithm for the worse.” His analysis identified a threshold around 28-30 days. Shorts older than that window now receive far fewer impressions than they did before mid-September.

The pattern wasn’t immediately obvious in channel-wide analytics because newer content masked the decline. Only after filtering specifically for Shorts posted before the 30-day cutoff did the picture become clear.

Joos posted a graph detailing the drop-off for seven major Shorts channels, though he withheld their names for client sensitivity. Every chart showed the same moment: around September, older Shorts’ view counts dropped sharply and stayed far lower than before.

🚨Important thread: The YouTube algorithm actually changed, for the worse. (+Data)

I’ve been thinking a lot about whether I should or shouldn’t address this publicly. I’ve already talked to some people within YouTube, but I don’t believe the word of a single person, meaning me,… pic.twitter.com/6RAz0u0A1d

— Mario Joos (@MarioJoos) November 30, 2025

He described the change as “the flattening.” In his view, YouTube is pushing creators toward high-volume uploads at the expense of quality. Joos says he understands this approach from a corporate standpoint as a competitive response to TikTok, but warns it disproportionately affects creators who depend on their Shorts income.

Joos is explicit about his uncertainty. He calls this “a carefully constructed working theory and not a confirmed fact.” Some commenters on his analysis note they have not experienced similar drops on their channels. Others corroborate his findings.

Creators Confirm The Pattern

Tim Chesney, a creator with two billion lifetime views across his channels, confirmed the pattern on X. He wrote:

“Can confirm this is true. 2B views on this chart, and in September all of the evergreen videos simply tanked. I think pushing fresh content makes sense, but when you think about it, it makes investing into your content and spending time improving it, irrelevant.”

Chesney argues that the shift pushes creators to “produce more instead of better.” He warned that if the trend continues, YouTube will become a “trash bin” of low-effort content similar to what he sees on TikTok.

This echoes concerns from earlier in the year. In August, multiple creators documented synchronized view drops that appeared related to separate platform modifications. Gaming channel Bellular News documented precipitous declines in desktop viewership starting August 13, though that change appeared related to how YouTube counted views from browsers with ad-blocking software.

The September Shorts shift appears to be a distinct change affecting the recommendation algorithm rather than view counting methodology.

The Evergreen Value Proposition

For years, the case for video content has rested on compounding value. Unlike trend-dependent posts that fade quickly, evergreen videos continue generating views and revenue long after publication. One production investment pays off across months or years.

This model has been central to how creators and businesses justify video investment. A tutorial published today should still attract viewers next year. A how-to guide should compound views as search demand persists.

A recency-focused algorithm undermines that math. If older Shorts stop generating impressions after 30 days, the value equation changes. Creators would need to publish continuously to maintain visibility, shifting resources from quality to quantity.

The economics become punishing. Instead of building a library that works while you sleep, creators face a treadmill where last month’s content stops contributing. Revenue becomes dependent on constant production rather than accumulated assets.

The Broader Context

The reported Shorts change follows a familiar pattern for anyone who has watched Google Search evolve. Freshness signals have long played a role in ranking, sometimes appearing to override comprehensive, well-researched content.

For SEO professionals, this matters beyond YouTube. Video strategy has often been pitched as a hedge against organic search volatility. As AI Overviews and zero-click results reduce traffic from traditional search, YouTube has represented an alternative channel with different dynamics.

If YouTube is applying similar freshness-over-quality logic, that changes the risk calculus. Practitioners evaluating where to invest their content resources may find the same frustrations emerging across both platforms.

This also reflects a broader pattern in how Google communicates with creators. YouTube’s Creator Liaison position exists to bridge the gap between platform and creators, but analysts and creators consistently report limited transparency about algorithm changes. The company rarely confirms or explains modifications until long after creators have identified them through their own data analysis.

Why This Matters

The value proposition of evergreen Shorts depends on long-tail performance. A shift toward recency-based ranking would require higher publishing frequency to maintain the same visibility.

Practitioners frustrated with Google Search volatility may find similar dynamics emerging on YouTube. The promise of a stable alternative channel looks less reliable if algorithm changes can abruptly devalue your content library.

This also affects how you advise clients considering video investment. The traditional pitch of “build once, earn forever” requires qualification if evergreen content has an effective shelf life of 30 days.

What To Do Now

If you publish Shorts, check your analytics for view declines on content older than 30 days. Compare September 2025 performance against earlier months. Look specifically at videos that previously showed steady long-tail performance.

The pattern Joos identified spans channels of very different sizes and categories. That breadth suggests a platform-level change rather than isolated performance issues. Whether YouTube acknowledges it or not, the data these analysts are reporting points to a shift worth monitoring closely.

Looking Ahead

YouTube hasn’t confirmed any changes to Shorts ranking. Without official documentation, these remain analyst observations and creator reports.

During Google’s Q3 earnings call, Philipp Schindler noted that recommendation systems are “driving robust watch time growth” and that Gemini models are enabling “further discovery improvement.” The company didn’t specify how these improvements affect content distribution or whether recency now plays a larger role in recommendations.

Featured Image: Mijansk786/Shutterstock

YouTube Title A/B Testing Rolls Out Globally To Creators via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

YouTube is rolling out title A/B testing globally to all creators with access to advanced features, expanding the testing capability beyond the select group that had early access.

The announcement came via the platform’s Creator Insider channel, clarifying how the feature works and addressing common questions from creators.

Title A/B testing joins thumbnail testing in YouTube’s “Test and Compare” tool. You can test up to three titles, three thumbnails, or combinations of both on a single video.

How Title A/B Testing Works

The A/B testing tool compares performance across experiment variations over a set period of up to two weeks.

After testing concludes, YouTube notifies creators of the results. If there’s a clear winner, that option becomes the default shown to all viewers. If all options performed similarly, the first combination becomes the default.

You can override the automatic selection at any time through the metadata editor or YouTube analytics page.

Why YouTube Uses Watch Time Over CTR

YouTube optimizes test results based on watch time rather than click-through rate.

In the Creator Insider video, the company explained:

“We want to ensure that your A/B test experiment gets the highest viewer engagement, so we’re optimizing for overall watch time over other metrics like CTR. We believe that this metric will best inform our creators content strategy decisions and support their chances of success.”

Understanding Test Results

YouTube tests deliver one of three possible outcomes.

“Winner” means one version outperformed others at driving watch time per impression. YouTube believes this version will lead to better performance.

“Performed the same” indicates all options earned similar shares of watch time. While small differences may appear, they aren’t statistically meaningful. You can choose whichever option you prefer.

“Inconclusive” can occur when no clear performance difference exists between options, or when the video doesn’t generate enough impressions for a reliable comparison. Higher view counts increase the likelihood of a decisive result.

Impression Distribution & Viewer Experience

YouTube distributes impressions as evenly as possible across test variations, though identical distribution isn’t guaranteed.

During active tests, viewers consistently see the same title-thumbnail combination across their home feed, watch page, and other YouTube surfaces. This prevents confusion from seeing different versions of the same video.

YouTube addressed a common concern about tests making previously-watched videos appear new. The company notes that watch history and the red progress bar on thumbnails remain the reliable indicators of what you’ve already watched.

Why This Matters

Title testing gives you data to inform creative decisions. Combined with thumbnail testing, you can now optimize both elements that influence whether viewers click on your videos.

The watch time metric means successful titles attract viewers who actually engage with your content, not just those who click and leave.

Looking Ahead

Title A/B testing requires access to YouTube’s advanced features, which you can enable through account verification. The feature works on long-form videos and is currently desktop-only.

YouTube first announced title A/B testing alongside thumbnail testing at Made on YouTube in September.

Featured Image: FotoField/Shutterstock

YouTube Launches First Annual Recap Feature For All Users via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

YouTube launched its first annual Recap feature, providing users with a personalized summary of their viewing activity throughout the year.

The feature is available starting today for users in North America and will roll out globally throughout the week, according to the YouTube Blog.

What’s New

YouTube Recap is accessible from the homepage or under the “You” tab on mobile and desktop. The feature generates up to 12 cards based on watch history, displaying top channels, interests, and viewing patterns over the year.

The cards also assign users a personality type based on viewing habits. Types include Adventurer, Skill Builder, Creative Spirit, Sunshiner, Wonder Seeker, Connector, Philosopher, and Dreamer.

YouTube said the most common personality types were Sunshiner, Wonder Seeker, and Connector. Philosopher and Dreamer were the rarest.

Users who listened to music through the platform will see Top Artists and Top Songs cards within their Recap. Additional music data, including genres, podcasts, and international listening, is available in the YouTube Music app.

YouTube said it conducted nine rounds of feedback testing and evaluated more than 50 concepts before finalizing the feature. In an accompanying video, YouTube representatives said the team used Gemini to analyze watch history patterns, which enabled them to create a structured recap from YouTube’s unstructured video library.

Why This Matters

YouTube Recap gives the platform a year-end engagement feature comparable to Spotify Wrapped.

For creators, the feature surfaces which channels appear in users’ top viewing lists. People can save and share their Recap cards, which could boost channels’ social media visibility during the holiday period.

Looking Ahead

Users in North America can access their Recap starting today. Those outside North America should see the feature become available throughout the week.

For more details, see the video below:

Pew: 84% Of Adults Use YouTube As Platform Growth Continues via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

YouTube and Facebook continue to lead U.S. social media usage, but TikTok, Instagram, WhatsApp and Reddit are showing consistent growth, according to new data from Pew Research Center.

The report surveyed 5,022 U.S and found 84% use YouTube and 71% use Facebook. Instagram reached 50% adoption, making it the only other platform used by at least half of American adults.

What The Data Says

TikTok Growth Continues

TikTok usage among U.S. adults has increased to 37%, a slight rise from last year and nearly twice the 21% recorded in 2021. Approximately 24% of TikTok users visit the platform daily.

Instagram Reaches Milestone

Half of U.S. adults now use Instagram, matching 2024 levels but rising from 40% in 2021. The platform is especially popular among younger users.

WhatsApp and Reddit Gain Users

WhatsApp usage increased to 32%, rising from 23% in 2021. Reddit grew to 26%, up from 18% four years earlier.

New Platforms Show Limited Reach

Among U.S. adults, Threads has an 8% adoption rate, Bluesky is at 4%, and Truth Social stands at 3%.

Usage Frequency Varies by Platform

Approximately half of adults (52%) visit Facebook every day, with 37% checking it multiple times. YouTube has 48% daily usage, with 33% visiting more than once a day.

TikTok is used daily by 24% of adults, while X (formerly Twitter) has a 10% daily usage rate.

Platform Demographics

Age is the strongest predictor of platform use. Eight in ten adults aged 18-29 use Instagram, versus 19% of those 65+. Similar gaps are seen for Snapchat (58% vs. 4%), TikTok (63% vs. 5%) and Reddit (48% vs. 6%).

YouTube and Facebook are used by most age groups, but younger adults still lead in YouTube at 95%, versus 64% for those 65+.

Women are more likely to use Facebook (78% vs. 63%), Instagram (55% vs. 44%) and TikTok (42% vs. 30%), while men favor X (29% vs. 15%) and Reddit (37% vs. 15%). Adults with college degrees are more likely to use Reddit (40%), WhatsApp (41%) and Instagram (58%) than those with high school or less.

Why This Matters

These usage patterns can help inform your content distribution plans.

YouTube and Facebook are key for reaching a wide audience, while TikTok, Instagram, and newer platforms focus on specific groups.

Since different age groups prefer different platforms, it’s a good idea to tailor strategies for each platform rather than sharing the same content everywhere.

Looking Ahead

Pew’s data indicates gradual changes rather than sudden growth. Younger adults are continuing to favor familiar platforms like YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Reddit, while older adults are still more reliant on Facebook and YouTube.

Newer platforms such as Threads and Bluesky are still niche but indicate where politically active users might experiment next.

Pew’s trend series and methodology notes offer a baseline to monitor whether these divides increase, decrease, or stabilize in future data.

Featured Image: Vasylisa Dvoichenkova/Shutterstock

YouTube Debunks 24-48 Hour Upload Delay Recommendation via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

YouTube’s Rene Ritchie says the recommendation system relies on audience behavior that only begins once a video is public.. Waiting 24–48 hours offers no benefit.

• YouTube’s recommendation system relies on audience behavior, which starts only when a video is public.
• You can upload early to let copyright and monetization checks finish before publishing.
• Waiting hours, weeks, or months won’t yield different results.

YouTube Separates Organic & Paid Metrics In Channel Analytics via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

YouTube introduced separate filtering for organic and paid traffic metrics in YouTube Analytics, allowing you to distinguish between unpaid and promoted content performance.

Channels can now filter views, engaged views, likes, comments, shares, and watchtime by traffic source. The update addresses longstanding questions about how paid advertising affects organic channel growth.

YouTube’s announcement included clarification that advertising doesn’t negatively impact organic performance, stating the two systems operate independently.

What’s New

The Analytics update adds traffic source filtering across core engagement metrics.

You can view performance data split between organic sources and paid advertisements, including YouTube Promote campaigns and brand-sponsored content.

YouTube’s announcement stated:

“Organic performance is determined by how the platform’s algorithm recommends your video to viewers based on factors like watch time, engagement, and audience retention. This is your video’s word of mouth reach, determined by the quality of the content itself. Whether or not it also runs as an ad has no impact.”

The platform distinguishes paid ad performance as determined by budget and targeting settings rather than algorithmic recommendations.

This is explained in more detail in the video below:

Addressing Performance Questions

YouTube addressed creator concerns about lower aggregate metrics when combining organic and paid performance.

The announcement noted that advertising often targets new audiences who may engage at lower rates than existing subscribers, which can reduce overall retention and click-through metrics when viewed in aggregate.

The new filtering allows creators to analyze each traffic source separately rather than viewing combined data.

Why This Matters

You can now measure organic content performance without paid promotion data affecting your metrics.

This separation helps identify which growth strategies work independently rather than attributing paid gains to organic strategy or vice versa.

The filtering clarifies whether audience retention issues stem from content quality or new audience targeting in ad campaigns.

Looking Ahead

The traffic filtering feature is available now in YouTube Analytics. YouTube didn’t specify whether additional metrics or filtering options will be added to the organic versus paid breakdown.

The update coincides with YouTube’s October 2025 terminology change renaming the “Views” metric to “TrueView views” in Google Ads reporting, though this naming change doesn’t affect how views are counted or billed.

Featured Image: T. Schneider/Shutterstock

YouTube Introduces ‘Ask Studio’ AI For Channel Analytics via @sejournal, @MattGSouthern

YouTube launched Ask Studio, an AI assistant built into YouTube Studio that analyzes channel data to provide insights and content suggestions.

The tool appears as a chat interface accessed through a sparkle icon in YouTube Studio. You can ask for comment summaries, video performance analysis, and content ideas based on your channel’s data.

What’s New

Ask Studio analyzes three primary types of channel data: comments, analytics, and past content performance.

For comments, Ask Studio can summarize key themes and sentiment across videos. You can ask for summaries on a specific video or get an overall view of what viewers are talking about.

For analytics, Ask Studio pulls from the same performance metrics already in YouTube Studio. It identifies patterns and suggests areas for improvement based on the channel’s data.

For content planning, Ask Studio can generate ideas tailored to what viewers already respond to. You can prompt it for new angles on an ongoing series, ask what topics are resonating with your audience, or get title and outline suggestions.

See a full walkthrough in the video below:

How It Differs From Inspiration Tab

Ask Studio and the Inspiration Tab are both designed to help with content ideas, but they work differently.

Inspiration Tab is a visual surface. It shows idea cards, images, and thumbnail suggestions for creators who like to browse concepts.

Ask Studio is conversational. You type a prompt and get an answer in plain language. It’s meant for creators who already have a direction and want help sharpening the angle, planning the next video, or understanding what viewers are saying.

Both use your channel data, but Ask Studio responds in real time. Inspiration Tab curates pre-generated suggestions.

Availability

Ask Studio is currently available in English to a limited group of creators in the United States.

YouTube says it’s continuing to expand access to more U.S. creators, experimenting with additional languages, and working on international rollout.

Some prompts may return a generic response or “I can’t help with that.” YouTube says that happens when Ask Studio doesn’t have enough context or doesn’t support that request yet.

Why This Matters

Ask Studio can surface patterns in your comments and analytics without manually digging through dashboards or scrolling hundreds of viewer messages. That reduces the time spent on reporting and lets you focus on packaging the next video.

The current limitation is reach. Right now it’s U.S.-only, English-only, and only some channels are in the test group, which restricts access for international creators and teams that work across multiple languages.

Looking Ahead

YouTube says it plans to roll out Ask Studio to more creators in the United States before expanding internationally. The company is also testing additional language support but hasn’t announced specific languages or dates.

The launch continues YouTube’s push toward AI-assisted creator tools inside YouTube Studio, alongside features like the Inspiration Tab for idea generation.

Featured Image: vrlibsstudio/Shutterstock