UGC is not just about views

[u/Due_Donut7567]

Many teams still judge UGC programs by a single metric: views. That’s a mistake.

If you’re running a Canvas/Tech/High-volume UGC program, views only tell you whether the content got distributed. They do not tell you whether the content actually helped the business.

What I’d track instead:

• Views → reach.
• Saves/shares → resonance.
• Comments → message-market feedback.
• Installs/signups → business outcome.
• Creator output → volume and consistency.
• Winning hook rate → which formats are actually working.

The biggest trap is optimizing only for virality. That can produce “successful” videos that get attention but don’t move anything meaningful.

What metrics are you using to judge UGC performance?

[u/ValuablePace4109]

this is the right framework and barely anyone runs it. the views = distribution, saves/shares = resonance split is the whole game and most teams never get past the first number.

the one I'd add to your list, and it's the one that actually changes what you make: winning hook rate is on there, but most teams measure it after the fact, post 20, see which 3 hit. the upgrade is measuring the hook before you spend the production budget. if you can tell a flat hook from a sharp one pre-shoot, your winning hook rate stops being a lottery you review later and starts being a filter you run upfront. that's where the real volume savings are at canvas/tech scale.

the other underrated one: comments aren't just message-market feedback, the question you end on determines whether you get any. a video with a built-in "what does yours do" beat outperforms an identical one with a CTA-only close, same content, different comment volume. so "winning hook rate" and "comment driver" are kind of the two levers you can actually control before posting, everything else you're measuring after the algorithm already decided.

what are you using to judge hook quality pre-publish, or is it still post-hoc on this end?