The Shorts + in-stream split test
Setup: $6,000, split evenly. Planning rates: the Shorts band midpoint $0.010 (band $0.005 to $0.015 Veefly, YouTube Advertising Cost, 2026, midpoint labeled as our planning assumption) and the in-stream blended average $0.024 Store Growers, Google Ads Benchmarks, Q1 2026.
Each half, worked
- Shorts: $3,000 / $0.010 = 300,000 views.
- In-stream: $3,000 / $0.024 = 125,000 views.
- Combined: 425,000 views for $6,000.
- Blended CPV = $6,000 / 425,000 = $0.014 (three decimals: $0.0141).
The mix-shift trap, stated plainly
Next flight, someone moves the split to 80/20 Shorts. Blended CPV falls toward $0.011 even if BOTH formats price exactly the same as before. The deck reads "efficiency improved 24%"; nothing improved, the mix moved. Blended CPV across formats with different view definitions Google Ads Help, video ad views, 2026 is a weighted average of two different products; report the halves separately, always.
Reading each half honestly
- Judge Shorts against the Shorts band Veefly, YouTube Advertising Cost, 2026 in the Shorts solver.
- Judge in-stream against the industry spread Store Growers, Google Ads Benchmarks, Q1 2026 in the YouTube solver.
- Settle the quality question per completed view: the CPCV calculator.
Split test: $3,000 Shorts @ $0.010 (band midpoint, Veefly 2026) = 300k views; $3,000 in-stream @ $0.024 (Store Growers Q1 2026) = 125k views; blended $0.014, report halves separatelyThe same trap at platform scale: Shorts vs TikTok. Band background: Shorts benchmarks.