Two markets, both unstaffed, looked equivalent on every number that got reported: users, watch time and revenue. A dedicated manager covering one of them had left, and the plan was to backfill the role there. Nothing in the headline numbers suggested that was the wrong call.
An analysis of how revenue was actually distributed in each market, which showed opposite structures. Reaching the same share of revenue took three times as many creators in one market as in the other, so identical coverage in each produced very different returns. Three staffing scenarios were modelled against that, and the recommendation moved existing coverage onto the long-tail market and redirected the open role to the concentrated one, which had no dedicated manager at all.
Two markets with the same headline numbers can need completely different coverage models. How concentrated the revenue is decides how many creators a team has to reach before the coverage pays for itself, and that decides whether a hire returns anything. Headcount set against market size rather than revenue distribution routinely puts people where they cannot cover enough to matter.