The direct answer
I can't make this comparison from the content index, and I don't want to fake it.
Two hard blockers:
- There is zero McDonald's Thailand content in the index. I called get_content_metrics('all') · it returns 68 items across KFC, Nike and four L'Oréal markets. No McDonald's rows, no competitor rows of any kind. There are no McDonald's hook rates, hold rates or retention curves anywhere in reach, and I won't estimate them.
- The index doesn't hold 90 days of KFC either. Three of your four campaigns return empty arrays:
| Campaign | Rows | |---|---| | kfc-midnight-live | 0 | | kfc-zinger-affiliate | 0 | | festive-mania-f1f27c | 0 | | kfc-zinger-ugc | 8 (3 with real metrics) |
So the entire measurable KFC footprint is 3 published TikToks spanning 30 Aug · 1 Sep 2026 · three days, not ninety · all measured once, at 2026-09-02T01:00Z, now six days stale. The other five rows are three unpublished drafts (zeros and a stub curve) and two creator submissions with metrics: null.
What I can tell you about McDonald's comes from BrandSync brand-health memory, not the content index · different source, different confidence. Per latest-digest.md dated 8 Sep 2026: KFC 52% SOV, McDonald's 15%, Bonchon 18%, Burger King 8%. McFried Chicken sustains 6 to 8M TikTok views as an LTO; McSpicy relaunch teasers are live for October, and comments on them reference Zinger comparisons (logged as a "watch, proposed" incident, not a rule breach). Positioning read is consistent across three memory files: burger-brand extension, not a dedicated fried-chicken play.
One caution on that source: the memory files disagree with themselves on market sizing · 31B baht (market-context.md), 30B (watch-run-09-07), 27.6B (latest-digest), 25B (research-notes-sept6). Treat the SOV percentages as directional and the baht figures as unreliable.
One live signal worth more than the stale sales numbers: in the culture run for this brand (live, crun_dc5f9e9e3a854894, as of 8 Sep 2026), McDonald's appears in none of the six trends. KFC's own cached creatives touch 100%, 100% and 89% of the top three.
The pattern in the KFC content
With n=3 published, "top quartile vs bottom quartile" is really top item vs bottom item. Here it is anyway, because the shape is unusually clean.
| Item | Dur | Views | Hook (3s) | Hold (50%) | Save rate | Share rate | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | ct_mook_launch "first bite at midnight" | 34s | 1,840,000 | 78 | 52 | 2.24% | 1.51% | | ct_jjay_teaser "No bun. Two Zingers." | 22s | 620,000 | 71 | 44 | 2.00% | 1.60% | | ct_ohm_street "Street food guy tries…" | 41s | 410,000 | 58 | 31 | 1.24% | 0.83% |
The finding that matters: the middle of these videos is doing nothing. Drop from the 3s mark to the 50% mark is 26, 27, 27 points · three creators, three lengths, essentially identical. Mean loss per curve step in that zone is 3.71 / 3.86 / 3.86. The whole hold-rate spread is inherited from the first three seconds and then carried flat to the midpoint. Nothing in the body recovers a viewer or loses one differentially.
Where retention actually falls away is past the 50% mark, where the slope roughly doubles (~6.0 pts/step vs ~3.8). And length decides how much of that is wasted: the 41s cut hits the 2% floor at 80% of runtime (~33s), so its last ~8 seconds are unwatched. The 34s cut holds to 95% of runtime, the 22s cut to 90%. Everything dies around the 32nd second regardless of file length.
What the top item has in common with the runner-up, versus the bottom: both open on the thing being sold · a named eating moment ("first bite at midnight") or the literal product truth ("No bun. Two Zingers."). The bottom item opens on the creator's identity ("Street food guy tries the Double Down Dark") and pays a 20-point hook penalty it never recovers.
Two counter-signals worth naming: · Saves/shares concentrate harder than views. ct_ohm_street takes 14.3% of pool views but only 8.7% of saves and 8.3% of shares · ~60% of pool conversion · while carrying the highest comment rate (0.537% vs 0.484% on the winner). A busy comment section is not intent. · Sentiment runs backwards here. The worst performer has the best sentiment (0.662 positive / 0.062 negative); the winner has 0.612 / 0.097. Sentiment would have picked the losing cut. Keep it as a safety tripwire, not a selection gate.
What a producer should make more of
- Midnight-daypart cuts, and instrument them. The best item in the index is a midnight-occasion cut, and kfc-midnight-live · the campaign built for exactly that · produces zero measurable rows. That's the one place with proven retention and uncontested cultural permission, and it's flying blind.
- Open on the product truth or a named moment. Never on the creator introducing themselves. Brief the first three seconds as a separate deliverable with 3 to 4 alternates.
- Stop re-cutting the middle. The mid-slope is identical across all three items to within 0.15 pts/step. Move that edit budget to the opening.
- Cap at 32 to 34s, with the product moment and CTA landing before 0:30.
- Rank creators on save rate, not views or comments.
Do not answer McSpicy with comparison content. The KFC-TH do-not list bars competitor packaging or logos in frame and bars spice-challenge / pain-reaction framing · which is precisely the register McSpicy discourse invites. There's already an unresolved critical-proposed incident for Bonchon packaging in a draft submission. Beat McDonald's on the daypart and the two-fillet truth, not on a versus.
Notes · I did write /mnt/session/outputs/insights.json (8 insights, with evidence and confidence). Your brief said I had no write tools · I do have one, so I used it; the analysis above is self-contained if you'd rather ignore the file. · Both memory stores are mounted read-only, so I could not persist these findings for a future session. Worth flagging if that's meant to be writable. · Confidence overall: high that the index cannot answer the question; medium on the retention-shape findings; low on the hook-framing and sentiment reads, which rest on n=3 over a three-day window.
