>>4498889People don't really realize how much pressure youtube content creators are to drum up viewership. The algorithm looks at your AVERAGE viewer metrics, not individual videos. If your averages are high, more of your popular videos will show up in searches and recommendations. If your averages are low and you have like, one viral video, that video is the only one that people will ever see. You have to upload a video basically every day or else youtube decides your channel is derelict and hides it. You make money off of your videos, which means every video that nobody sees because youtube decided you're worthless is hours of labour that ended up worth less than minimum wage. For a successful channel, every below-average video drags your entire channel down, and reduces the value of every other video you have made and will make.
Streamers can't help if a one-off stream ends up with a 3rd of their usual viewership because reasons outside of their control. But they would have to be legitimately insane to continue streaming a game that drags their average down (and thus their overall priority in the algorithm and search queue) after seeing that it drags their average down. This is how you manufacture a terminal channel decline and steadily drop from ~10k average live views and 500k VoD views to ~3k average live views and ~150k VoD views. Everything snowballs, on youtube, whether it's going upwards or downwards. And while, in honestly live views don't actually matter for channel metrics (the algorithm only looks at VoD views to determine how 'viewed' an upload is), they are the best indication a streamer has of how far the VoD views will actually go--there's a definite, clear correlation between the two.
This is why fluctuation in live viewer counts are irrelevant. As long as a live viewer stuck around long enough to be counted as a 'view' they've contributed all they will ever contribute. But every time you upload something to your channel that performs 'below average' in total VoD views over time (and specifically, VoD views within 24 hours of uploading), you shrink your audience, harm future growth and reduce your channel revenue.
For a company like Cover, these things aren't purely the discretion of the talent. They don't "own" their channel--Cover does. And Cover has a vested interest in making sure that channels with high viewership don't self-sabotage.
So yes, it's understandable that numbers will concern a talent, even a lassaiz-faire one like Ame. The fact that they don't make this readily apparent just means they aren't a menhera and can maintain at least some degree of professional composure.
