Strategy question

Suppose you're trying to convince Google execs to keep growing the YouTube Shorts product. You can put 3 graphs in your slide deck. What graphs would you want to create?

Practice this question out loud. An AI interviewer asks it, follows up like a real interviewer would, and scores your answer. Type or speak.

What this question tests

Executive communication and metrics prioritization: can you pick the three most persuasive data visualizations for a growth investment decision.

Clarify the audience's real objection: is it that Shorts cannibalizes long-form YouTube revenue, or that it's unprofitable.
Graph 1: Shorts engagement/retention trend over time (DAU, watch time growth) to show momentum.
Graph 2: Cannibalization analysis, long-form watch time held flat or grew despite Shorts growth, addressing the core fear directly.
Graph 3: Monetization trajectory, RPM (revenue per mille) improving over time as ad load and formats mature, showing the path to profitability.
Explain why these three together tell a complete story: growth, no cannibalization, and a credible path to revenue.
Mention what you'd exclude, e.g. raw view counts alone, since they don't address the exec's real concern.

Picks graphs that directly rebut the likely executive objection (cannibalization, monetization) rather than generic growth charts.
Explicitly ties each graph to a specific fear or question the execs would have, showing audience awareness.
Chooses a trend line (RPM improving) over a single snapshot number, since trajectory is what justifies continued investment.
Explains the narrative arc across the three graphs instead of listing them independently.

Choosing vanity metrics (total views) that don't address the real investment question.
Not considering the cannibalization fear, which is the most obvious executive pushback for a Shorts investment.

What's your response if the cannibalization graph actually showed long-form declining?
What's the single most important number on your first graph, and why?