When trying to reach a mass audience, what's the best platform to share your content? Well, the obvious answer is as many places as you can. But according to a post by bitly analyzing traffic patterns, links shared on YouTube have a lifespan of 7.3 hours, compared to 2.8 hours on Twitter and 3.4 hours on Facebook. Why such the disparity? Why does YouTube have such a longer lifespan?
Is it because video has a longer lifespan than all other forms of content? Or is it because YouTube has a different user-experience than other social media platforms? While YouTube content is slower to peak, it lasts far longer in the online ecosystem than content posted on other social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. The most obvious answer for the cause of this phenomenon would be that video is a medium that inherently captures our attention for a longer, and slower, period of time. We tend to go back, rewatch and share video more than we do text-based content, causing video to have a longer lifespan.
But there's also another possible explanation for YouTube's lengthier half-life. It could just be the nature of YouTube's network structure. Facebook and Twitter are more of aggregators than YouTube, which is a platform for user-generated content rather than just a portal. So, because of their vast user base and high rate of captivity, Facebook and Twitter by their nature attract attention quicker. But that attention is often only surface attention, which is possibly a reason those networks have a shorter half-life than YouTube. People go to YouTube videos more frequently as a destination, whereas other social media platforms only act as a portal.