Channel Formula
- Every channel that works has an unwritten contract with its audience: a specific promise the winners keep and the flops break. This skill makes the contract written.
- Generic storytelling craft is necessary but not sufficient — a technically perfect story that breaks the channel's promise still dies. Audience expectation beats craft.
- The output is a reusable channel profile: formula, title pattern, packaging rules, and retention benchmarks, extracted from the channel's own data — never from assumptions about the niche.
- Built on the six levers — see storytelling-hooks. Recap: 1. Curiosity gap · 2. Emotional mirror · 3. Conflict engine · 4. Relatability · 5. Pattern + surprise · 6. Three-act.
When to Use
- A channel has some winners and some flops and nobody can articulate why.
- Before scripting for an established channel — check the premise against the formula first.
- After a flop, alongside retention-audit (audit finds where it died; this skill finds what promise was broken).
- Any platform, any niche: crime stories, cricket, tech reviews, cozy content, finance, faith, vlogs.
Intake (the evidence)
- 3–5 top videos: title, thumbnail (screenshot fine), views/velocity, and if available retention at 0:30.
- 1–3 flops from the same format — flops are as informative as winners; the formula lives in the difference.
- Channel's audience in one sentence, and what viewers do with the content (background listening? active watching? saving?).
- Never derive a formula from one video or from niche stereotypes — real data only. Too few videos? Say so and mark the profile "provisional".
Extraction Workflow
- Line up winners' titles side by side. Find the shared skeleton: what kind of threat/promise/subject repeats? What resolution do they all point to? Write the pattern as a fill-in:
[recurring setup]... [recurring promise clause].
- Line up the thumbnails. What is the focal subject in every winner? What emotion? What's never there?
- Name the core promise in one sentence: what feeling does the viewer come to have? (Crime channel: "I saw the twist coming before the detective." Tech channel: "I avoided an expensive mistake." Fitness channel: "I can restart after falling off.")
- Autopsy the flops against it. Which element of the promise did each flop break — premise, resolution, packaging tone, pacing? The broken element becomes a "never" rule.
- Set benchmarks from the channel's own winners (retention at 0:30 / 2:00, typical velocity) — not from industry averages.
- Calibrate the levers. Same six levers, channel-specific volume: how hot should tension run? What kind of conflict does this audience accept? How long should resolutions linger?
Profile Output Format
Deliver (and save, if the user wants it reused) a profile containing:
| Section |
Content |
| Core promise |
One sentence — the feeling viewers come for |
| The formula |
2–4 numbered rules the winners share |
| Evidence table |
Winners + flops with the formula kept/broken |
| Title pattern |
Fill-in skeleton from the winners |
| Packaging rules |
Thumbnail focal subject, emotion, never-list |
| Kill-zone rule |
What the first 30s must show (confirm the click) |
| Benchmarks |
Retention/velocity targets from the channel's own data |
| Lever calibration |
Tension level, conflict type, resolution length |
| Never-list |
Every promise-break found in a flop |
- Where to save: the profile is channel-private strategy — save it as a personal skill (
~/.claude/skills/<channel-name>-formula/) or a private note, not in a public repo.
- The profile overrides generic skills where they conflict — state this in the profile so future scripting sessions respect it.
Applying the Profile (every future video)
- Check the premise against the core promise before scripting — a formula-breaking premise gets reframed, not polished (a mentor-betrays-student premise on a "mentors you can trust" channel becomes "the red flags that expose a bad mentor").
- Title from the title pattern; thumbnail from the packaging rules; opening frame confirms the thumbnail.
- After publish, run retention-audit; feed every new winner/flop back into the profile. The formula is living — two lines of update per video.
Common Mistakes
| Mistake |
Fix |
| Formula from niche stereotypes ("crime = shocking") |
Extract from THIS channel's winners only |
| Only studying winners |
Flops define the never-list — the formula is in the difference |
| One video treated as a pattern |
3+ winners minimum; otherwise mark provisional |
| Formula written once, never updated |
Update after every publish via retention-audit |
| Channel profile committed to a public repo |
Private skill/note — it's competitive strategy |
| Formula treated as a cage |
It constrains premise and packaging, not creativity within them |
Formula Checklist
- 3+ winners and ≥1 flop examined?
- Core promise stated in one sentence?
- Title pattern written as a fill-in skeleton?
- Every flop mapped to a broken rule (never-list)?
- Benchmarks taken from the channel's own data?
- Levers calibrated to the audience's tension tolerance?
- Profile saved privately for reuse?
Related
- retention-audit — post-publish diagnosis that feeds this profile.
- titles-and-thumbnails / long-form-youtube / storytelling-hooks — the generic craft the profile calibrates.