---
title: 'Clickbait is Unreasonably Effective'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng'
video_id: 'S2xHZPH5Sng'
date: 2026-06-15
duration_sec: 1165
---

# Clickbait is Unreasonably Effective

> Source: [Clickbait is Unreasonably Effective](https://youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng)

## Summary

Veritasium explores the evolution of clickbait on YouTube, explaining how the platform's algorithm shift from subscriber-driven to engagement-driven content made compelling titles and thumbnails essential for success. He distinguishes between 'legitbait' (accurate but enticing) and 'clicktrap' (misleading) and shares personal experiments showing that better packaging can multiply views tenfold, ultimately enabling higher-quality educational content.

### Key Points

- **Admitting clickbait weakness** [0:00] — Derek confesses he's terrible at clickbait; his early video 'Strange Applications of the Magnus Effect' got 16.3M views off-platform but few on YouTube due to poor title/thumbnail.
- **YouTube's algorithm shift** [1:41] — YouTube moved from subscriber-driven views to engagement-driven, making clickbait more important because showing only subscribed content led to fewer clicks and less watch time.
- **The clickbait paradox** [3:17] — People claim to hate clickbait, yet it's everywhere. Two definitions: type I (legitbait) attracts attention honestly; type II (clicktrap) is sensationalized/misleading.
- **Legitbait vs. clicktrap** [5:51] — Brady Haran suggests 'legitbait' for honest enticing titles and 'clicktrap' for misleading ones. The best titles balance curiosity without deception.
- **Importance of title/thumbnail** [6:36] — MrBeast states that if people don't click, they don't watch; click-through rate is critical for impressions and success.
- **Title/thumbnail as half the job** [7:49] — Derek realized that making the title/thumbnail is at least half the job because better packaging increases both clicks and impressions.
- **Asteroid video case study** [8:47] — Changing title from 'Asteroids: Earth's Biggest Threat' to 'These Are the Asteroids to Worry About' boosted views from ~1.5M to 14M.
- **Big YouTubers test thumbnails** [10:56] — MrBeast makes 2-3 thumbnails per video and swaps them based on performance; no one knows beforehand which will work best.
- **Educational value of legitbait** [12:07] — Using accessible titles like 'The Simplest Math Problem No One Can Solve' instead of 'Collatz Conjecture' reaches broader audiences and teaches more people.
- **Supporting high-quality content** [13:14] — Optimizing titles/thumbnails funds better science documentaries with experts, props, animations, and research.
- **The irony of truth-seeking** [14:10] — Derek worries about experimenting at the edge of truthfulness to promote a truth-seeking mindset, but uses scientific testing to find accurate yet clickable packaging.
- **Better titles improve accuracy** [15:57] — Examples: 'Why the Neutron is the Hero of Nuclear Physics' changed to 'Why Einstein Thought Nuclear Weapons Impossible' increased views; 'Backspin Basketball Flies Off Dam' is more accurate than 'Strange Applications of the Magnus Effect'.
- **Symbiotic relationship** [17:50] — More views enable better video quality, creating a virtuous cycle: good packaging funds better content, which attracts more viewers.

### Conclusion

Clickbait, when used honestly as 'legitbait', is a powerful tool for educational creators to reach wider audiences and fund high-quality content. The key is to test and optimize titles/thumbnails without misleading viewers, creating a symbiotic relationship between views and video quality.

## Transcript

- Can I tell you something I'm bad at?
I am terrible at making clickbait.
Up until two years ago,
my most popular video
was about a basketball
being dropped from a dam
with a bit of backspin.
It takes off like a rocket and shoots out
way further than you'd expect.
This video was embedded
on literally hundreds of news websites.
And in its first week, it
got 16.3 million views,
but almost none of those views
came on the YouTube platform.
Why?
Because I gave it this thumbnail
and I called it "Strange
Applications of the Magnus Effect."
This video is sponsored by KiwiCo.
More about them at the end of the show.
Now, I believe within YouTube,
I'm used as an example of how
not to package your video.
As if to demonstrate just how bad
a title and thumbnail this is,
someone else re-uploaded the
video with the clever title,
"Basketball Dropped From Dam."
And within a few weeks,
that video had received
tens of millions of views on YouTube.
This is when YouTube gave
me access to ContentID.
That's the system that
allows you to earn revenue
when someone else re-uploads
your videos, which was good,
but I still wasn't very good at clickbait.
So for this video, I called in an expert.
I wanted to see your reaction face.
Can you give me like a reaction face?
Like what's a good thumbnail face?
- Oh, I got you.
This is a thumbnail face.
(Derek laughs)
I have like 10, I go through
the motions of like...
(Derek laughs)
And then we just take the best one,
I probably have like
500 of these just saved
and we can just Photoshop
my face on my face.
That way, I don't have to do it anymore.
- When I started on this
platform, some 10 years ago,
clickbait was less important.
Subscribers were what mattered,
because most of the views
came from the sub feed.
And videos went viral usually
by getting a lot of attention elsewhere,
like on Reddit or Facebook,
not due to the YouTube algorithm.
But once you had a big
video and people subscribed,
well, then your next video
would likely get a lot of views
from those subscribers.
So YouTube would take that popular video
and share it with more people.
And so you'd get more subscribers
in a positive feedback loop.
But soon, YouTube realized
that this did not create
the best experience for the viewer.
They discovered that
showing people only videos
from channels they were
subscribed to led to fewer clicks,
less watch time and less engagement
with the site as a whole.
Plus, they knew that
relying on other platforms
to drive traffic to viral hits was risky,
since those other platforms might disable
the traffic at any time.
So they needed to make YouTube
a destination in itself.
They wanted people to come to YouTube,
see videos that interested them,
click on at least one of them
and watch it for a while.
Ideally get sucked down
the YouTube rabbit hole
and spend hours on the site
without even noticing it.
The ultimate resource is people's time
and attention, and every platform
is trying to capture as
much of it as possible.
So, to make YouTube
this go-to destination,
they had decrease the
importance of subscribers,
make it less like a podcast app
where you only get the
shows you're subscribed to,
and more like Reddit,
where stuff with the most
engagement rises to the top.
But that necessarily meant increasing
the importance of clickbait.
Now, there seems to be a paradox
when it comes to clickbait.
People almost universally
claim to hate it,
but you also see it everywhere.
So why is this?
Well, one of the problems
is we don't all agree
on the definition of clickbait.
When I google it, the top definition is,
on the internet, content
whose main purpose
is to attract attention
and encourage visitors
to click on a link to
a particular webpage.
We could call this type I clickbait,
and there doesn't seem to
be anything wrong with it.
I mean, if you didn't
try to attract attention
and get people to click on your links,
then you wouldn't really
be doing your job.
But there is a second definition.
One that I think more people ascribe to,
which is something such
as a headline designed
to make readers want to
click on a hyperlink,
especially when the link leads to content
of dubious value or interest.
Wikipedia says, "A defining
characteristic of clickbait
is that it is sensationalized
or misleading."
And it also talks about teasers
that intentionally withhold information
to exploit the "curiosity gap."
They give you enough
information to make you curious,
but not enough to satisfy that curiosity.
Here are two actual titles
from a news website.
Nine out of 10 Americans
are completely wrong
about this mind blowing fact.
And someone gave some kids some scissors.
Here's what happened next.
I think we can all agree
that these are examples
of bad type II clickbait.
Now, imagine a clickbait
space where on one axis,
you have how misleading
or sensationalized it is.
And on the other, how much information
is intentionally withheld
to create a curiosity gap.
Well, then these two titles
fall in the top right corner.
And these are the zones
of type II clickbait.
At the other extreme,
you have things that are so
unsensationalized as to be dull.
You could call this the dead zone.
Now, here is where you would find
"Strange applications
of the Magnus Effect."
I mean, I didn't tell you
what the applications were.
Now, in the middle is where you
would find type I clickbait.
But honestly, I think type
I and type II clickbait
are so different, that
we shouldn't even use
the same word for them.
Instead of type I clickbait,
my friend and YouTuber, Brady
Heron suggested legitbait.
I mean, it might sound
enticing, but it is legit.
Instead of type II clickbait,
we could use clicktrap,
clicktrick, linktrap or dupechute.
What's important to recognize
is that for any given video,
there is no one true title and thumbnail.
Each video could have
hundreds or thousands
of different legitbait titles.
For example, how does a zero-G plane work?
I went on a plane that does
parabolic trajectories.
What happens to fire on a zero-G plane?
Now, the most enticing
titles and thumbnails
are found close to type II clickbait.
I'm reminded of the infographic
by smarter every day,
showing that on social media,
the greatest engagement
occurs close to the boundary
of what's allowable.
But remember that everyone's
definition of clickbait
is different, and everyone's perceptions
of words and images are different.
So these are not clear boundaries.
They're actually kind of fuzzy.
What for one person might be legitbait,
for someone else, could be a clicktrap.
What's clear is that on a site
where click-through rate is important,
clickbait of all types is inevitable.
How important to a video's success
is the title and thumbnail?
- Very important. Of course.
If they don't click on the video,
they don't watch it.
You can't get 10 million views
unless 10 million people
click on the video.
So, I mean, it's literally that simple.
They don't click on it,
they don't watch it.
- So, why is clickbait everywhere?
Well, because it works.
More enticing thumbnails get more clicks.
Despite some people's claims
that they won't click or they'll unsub,
it's just like evolution.
Whatever survives, multiplies
and traits become amplified.
If you don't begrudge
the giraffe its long neck
so it can reach the highest leaves,
can you begrudge a YouTuber the red arrow
that allows them to
reach further audiences?
I talked about this in
my video two years ago.
To be successful as a YouTuber,
you need to optimize two things,
watch time and the click-through
rate of your videos.
That's the number of times
the title and thumbnail are clicked,
divided by the total number
of times they're shown.
That's the number of impressions.
Now at the time,
this was something of a revelation for me
because I always thought my
job was to make great videos.
And then a title and thumbnail
that adequately represented
what the video was about.
But now I've realized that
making the title and thumbnail
is at least half the job.
This is not just because
better titles and thumbnails
get you more clicks,
but because better titles and thumbnails
will get you way more impressions.
YouTube has limited real estate
with which to show you
virtually infinite content.
And so it's not enough
to make a good video
even if people watch all of it,
you also have to make
a title and thumbnail
that gets clicked,
especially in competition
with other really good
titles and thumbnails.
That's the only way you can expect YouTube
to give you more impressions.
Now, the big development
since my last video on this
is YouTube introduced real-time metrics
like views, impressions
and click-through rate.
Now, I suggested this
would create an arms race.
So what you can bet will happen
is that creators will launch a video
and then they'll be sitting there
with all these different
variants of thumbnails
and they'll be swapping them out
and looking at what that
does to click-through rate
and then going with the one
that leads to the greatest
click-through rate.
And this is basically what has happened.
Let me give you my favorite example.
Last year, I made a video about asteroids,
which I thought was really good.
I called it "Asteroids:
Earth's Biggest Threat,"
which is something Stephen Hawking said.
And people were very
positive about the video.
They thought it was maybe one of my best,
but the performance
was well below average.
In its first day,
asteroids was ranked ninth
out of my previous 10 videos.
It was probably on target
for about one and a half million views.
So I tried different titles and thumbnails
like, "Asteroid Impact:
What Are Our Chances?"
Or "Asteroid Impact: What Could We Do?"
But none of these changes
got much traction.
And then on day three after launch,
I changed the title and thumbnail
to "These Are the
Asteroids to Worry About."
And immediately the video
started doing better.
It quickly shot up from almost
my worst performing video
to my best.
It now has 14 million views.
Nothing about the video changed,
just that one image and 38 characters.
But because of that, the video has reached
nearly 10 times as many people
as it otherwise would have.
And the title and thumbnail
accurately describe
what the video is about.
I mean, sure, there's a curiosity gap,
but you couldn't explain the whole concept
in the length of the title.
So if you see a YouTuber
changing titles and thumbnails,
this is why.
Because that effort can be
rewarded many times over.
I've seen people
objecting to this practice
because they think the creator
is trying to dupe their audience,
get them to click on the
same video more than once,
but that's not it.
The whole point is to get YouTube
to show the title and
thumbnail to more people.
We're trying to increase
the number of impressions,
which is heavily dependent
on the click-through rate.
Now, a lot of my recent videos
have this typical view curve.
There's an initial spike
after I release the video
and then a dip, and then a second bump
after I have figured out a
better title and thumbnail.
I change the title and thumbnail
and I watch the real time view graph.
What I'm looking for is a
noticeable bump in views.
Sometimes there's no change,
sometimes it gets worse,
but on occasions, when you
see something like this,
well then, you know you've found a winner.
This is something all the
big YouTubers are doing.
Not even Mr. Beast knows exactly
which thumbnail will work best beforehand.
Have you ever changed
a title and thumbnail
and then the video did better?
- Oh, of course.
So everybody, I usually make
like two or three thumbnails,
and then if it's not
doing as well as I want,
we usually just swap 'em out
and see if it does better.
'cause the thing is like,
you don't really know.
I mean, you could know if you
just were an almighty being
that could just predict what
people would be interested in,
but you know, usually...
Like, you can do hide and seek.
You don't really know if
like you hiding in a tree
and then someone walking
below you is a good thumbnail.
Or if you hiding a trash can and
them walking in front of you.
So, you know, just do both
and then see which one interests
people a little bit more.
- I feel the same way,
but I do feel like you have a better sense
of this than like most people.
- Of course.
I mean, no one gets 40
million views a video.
(both laughing)
- But what is the point
in getting more views?
If you're cynical,
you might say it's all
about money and fame.
And while there are certainly
financial incentives
to getting more views,
that's not why I do it.
As an educational YouTuber,
I think there are two very good reasons
for using excellent type I clickbait
over more straightforward packaging.
To understand the first reason,
let's consider two
different possible titles
for my most recent video.
I called it "The Simplest Math
Problem No One Can Solve,"
but it's a video about
the Collatz conjecture.
So perhaps a more straightforward title
would have been simply to call it that.
The problem is, if I publish a video
called the Collatz conjecture,
the most likely people to click on it
are those who already know
what the Collatz conjecture is.
And the vast majority of people
will never have heard of it.
So for them, the title is meaningless
and only the very curious
or those who really like
Veritasium would click.
In contrast, calling it
"The Simplest Math Problem
No One Can Solve,"
conveys more information
about the video to everyone.
And this means more
people can click on it,
most of whom will never have heard
of the Collatz conjecture.
So I get to teach them something new.
And since the video has a
higher click-through rate,
YouTube shows it to even more people.
So if my aim is to increase
the level of knowledge
in the world by the
maximum amount possible,
this is the way to do it.
The second reason we need to
optimize titles and thumbnails
is to support the major
goal of this channel.
We are trying to make
the best science films
on every topic we tackle.
That means traveling to meet
experts in film experiments,
hiring people to build props,
make spectacular animations,
research and fact check.
We hire expert consultants
to double and triple check our work.
I don't wanna make vlogs.
I wanna make science
documentaries on YouTube
that put broadcast to shame.
And to make this possible and sustainable,
the videos have to get
views and lots of them.
And to do that, we have to make
the best titles and thumbnails we can.
YouTuber and Patreon CEO, Jack Conte
has talked about adjusting your packaging.
The idea is know what
you're passionate about,
what you won't compromise on
and that stuff goes in the box.
All the rest, like what
paper it's wrapped in,
that's the packaging.
So the video is my focus
and the title and thumbnail
are the packaging that
I'm happy to adjust,
so I can make the type of
videos that are important to me.
Now, is it ironic that a
channel whose whole purpose
is to promote a true seeking mindset
has to experiment at the
edge of what is truthful
in order to fulfill that purpose?
It is something that I
often worry about.
You know, when I did like
risking my life to do X,
it's like, well, what probability of death
does there have to be for
you to risk your life?
Like 50%?
- I love how he always overthinks things.
(laughs)
That's funny.
He's like, is my life risked enough
where I can put I risked my life?
I only had a 9% chance of dying
and I need at least a 13% chance.
You're so funny.
He was the same way two years ago
when he asked me all this stuff.
I was like, "Dude, just do
whatever makes the most sense.
- Yeah, I mean, obviously
I feel like my instincts
are not good.
But what I realized
is that I don't have
to trust my instincts.
This problem of getting the
best title and thumbnail,
well, it's a scientific problem.
We're just asking which accurate
representation of the video
will get the most clicks
from a general audience.
And that's a problem we can use
the scientific method to solve.
So I've hired a couple
of really bright people
and we spend a lot of time brainstorming
and making titles and
thumbnails and testing them out.
For example, on Twitter and Patreon.
Varitasium titles and
thumbnails have gotten better,
not because I'm better at it,
but because of my team and our testing.
If you have ideas about
how we could do it better,
please get in touch.
The results have often
contradicted what I expected.
I mean, this video seemed
to perform 10% better
when we excluded the word
surprising from the title.
So it became simply The
Secret of Synchronization.
I thought these two titles
were basically a toss up,
but Patreon had a strong
preference for one over the other.
What's interesting about this research
is that the more clickable
titles and thumbnails
often better represent
the content of the video.
Let me give you some examples.
One thing I didn't expect
when YouTube brought in
the real time analytics tools
and allowed title and thumbnail changes
to affect impressions,
was that it would also
work for older videos.
So here is an old video
that I originally entitled,
"Why the Neutron is the
Hero of Nuclear Physics."
In hindsight, it's a weird,
kinda meaningless title.
So I changed it to, "Why Einstein Thought
Nuclear Weapons Impossible."
It's clearer, more accurate.
And this is what happened
to views after the change.
I changed "Strange Applications
of the Magnus Effect"
to "Backspin Basketball Flies Off Dam."
Again, more accurate.
And the video is now
being watched on YouTube.
Probably 10 million more views
than it otherwise would have had.
Even anti-clickbait has proven effective.
Here's a video I originally titled,
"Are Negative Ions Good For You?"
Which is a question nobody asked ever.
Now, I changed it to,
"Do Salt Lamps Work?"
Seriously.
And here's the result:
One and a half million more views.
I think looking at these examples,
you could easily make the case
that YouTube has made
me better at what I do.
It has improved the clarity and accuracy
of my titles and thumbnails.
It's helped me figure out
what is interesting to my audience
and how to encapsulate
that in a single image
and fewer than 50 characters.
For those of you who worry that a focus
on titles and thumbnails will prevent me
from picking challenging science topics,
well, I simply ask you
to look at the videos
from the last year or two,
like the ones on Gödel's
incompleteness theorem,
general relativity, Penrose tilings,
the logistic map, Newton's
method of calculating Pi,
the one way speed of light.
Good titles and thumbnails
make it possible
to tackle these topics
and to reach more people
who have heard of them before.
There is a symbiotic relationship
between views and video quality.
The more views we get, the more people,
locations, props and equipment
and research we can invest in.
This makes the next video
better than the last.
If we can be good at
titles and thumbnails,
the ultimate outcome is better videos.
That is something I think
you and I both want.
Hey, this video is sponsored by KiwiCo,
a long time supporter of the channel.
Now KiwiCo makes awesome
hands on projects for kids,
including big kids like me.
They have eight subscription lines
targeted at different age groups,
all the way down to newborns.
What I love about KiwiCo crates
is that they make learning fun
and something to look forward to.
I mean, when I pull out a crate,
my kids just jump at the
chance to make it with me.
And all the materials you
need come right in the box.
So there's no need to run to the store.
You just open it up and go.
My kids and I just built
this domino machine,
which, who knows, might be
inspiration for a viral video.
Now, the big idea is that
while playing and having fun,
kids learn about STEAM concepts.
That is science, technology,
engineering, art and math.
And in addition to the project,
there's a magazine with a lot
of additional information.
So I think this is the best way to learn.
By doing something
yourself and having fun,
it's how education should be.
So if you wanna try it out,
go to Kiwico.com/veritasium50,
and you'll get 50% off your
first month of any crate.
I will put that link
down in the description.
So I wanna thank KiwiCo
for sponsoring Veritasium,
and I wanna thank you for watching.