First sponsored video didn't do good

[wheat marsh]

Hi, I posted a video at the end of December about a DIY raspberry pi project and it took off, currently sitting at 98k views. From this I received a sponsorship offer from a company who's product was featured. I accepted it and made a follow up video building on top of the same project with a 30 second midroll ad, but the second video isn't doing as good even though I thought it was better in terms of content and quality.

Need feedback on:
Why do you think the follow up video didn't do as good?
Should I update the title & thumbnail for the second video? If yes, what can be improved?
Any thoughts/criticisms/feedback about both videos overall

Links & Stats for both videos:

1. Title: Minimal E-Ink Clock with a Raspberry Pi (Tutorial)
   https://youtu.be/L5PvQj1vfC4
   Views: 98k
   CTR: 5.2%
   AVD: 2:04 (Total Duration: 6:32, APV: 31.2%)

2. Title: I built an E-Ink AI Image Display with a Raspberry Pi
   https://youtu.be/ZsEpd-VwJCs
   Views: 2.8k
   CTR: 6.0%
   AVD: 2:08 (Total Duration: 7:30, APV: 28.1%)

Can provide any additional info/data as well. My theory is that

1. the 30 second ad hurt the view duration, causing it to not get picked up
2. first video is a tutorial while the second is more of a walkthrough, and more people are interested in a tutorial?

[misty sable]

1. It's unlikely that the sponsored segment had any noticeable impact on your views. It's toward the end of the video, so I would assume that any viewers still watching past the initial drop-off period are going to keep watching regardless. It would be a different case if you had it at the start of the video.
2. You should check traffic sources. Did the first video have more direct search traffic because of the word "Tutorial" in the title? Did only your existing subscribers watch the second one?

From watching both of the videos, they are written in a completely different way. The second video is meandering and, as a viewer, you don't really get what's it about. You start the video by saying:

I've always wanted a digital picture frame to showcase AI generated images, a frame that could display random daily artwork or create visuals from text prompts on the fly.
Now compare this to how you started the first video that did well:
This is a 7.3 inch e-ink display powered by a Raspberry Pi.

The same is true for the rest of the intro. The first video is much more concrete.

The viewer retention graphs should maybe, probably be better on the first video than the second. But I am not sure, since it was pushed to a broader audience, lowering AVD and CTR (this isn't a bad thing). You should compare them regardless. Probably some insight there.
There's also a much smaller niche for people interested in digitally framing their image gens. An e-ink clock has more broad appeal.

A more minor point is the thumbnail. It's much more visually interesting in the first video because of the background. It looks aesthetically pleasing and high-quality.

[wheat marsh]

@misty sable Thank you for your insight! Just checked the search traffic for the first video and it doesn't like "Tutorial" is in the top keywords, and around 82% of the traffic source is "Browse Features" anyways.
I do agree that the first video has a stronger and more direct intro, and I've had trouble scripting and planning the second video since its building on top of the previous video and more of a walkthrough of adding a new feature.

Here are the viewer retention graphs for both:

I had removed the background in the second thumbnail to bring more attention to the frame and to not have a repetitive thumbnail. Do you think updating the thumbnail or title now will help?

[misty sable]

The thumbnail isn't that bad. I would say that it's more so the nicheness of the topic + somewhat weaker writing that are affecting the views.