Repurposing Calculator

Working out whether adapting a piece is worth the time — before you spend it.

The question this answers

Repurposing feels free because the thinking is done. It is not. Each adaptation costs real minutes, and past a certain point you are spending an hour to reach forty people who would have seen the original anyway.

Step 1: the source

Piece
Hours to create
Audience it reached
What it achieved

Step 2: cost per adaptation

Be honest. Include the review and the publishing, not just the generating.

Output	Draft (min)	Edit (min)	Publish (min)	Total
Short post	5	10	3	18
Thread / carousel	10	20	10	40
Email	10	15	5	30
Short video	15	45	10	70
Clip from existing video	5	15	5	25
Long adaptation for another platform	20	40	10	70

These are realistic for someone competent with the tools. Halve the draft column once your prompts are dialled in; the edit column barely moves, which is the point.

Step 3: the value

For each channel, estimate what one post is actually worth to you:

Value per post = (typical reach) × (your conversion rate to whatever you care about)
                 × (value of one of those)

If you do not have conversion data yet, use a placeholder and revisit in a month. The relative ordering is usually right even when the absolute numbers are not.

Channel	Typical reach	Conversion	Value each	Value per post

Step 4: the decision

Worth doing if:  value per post  >  (minutes ÷ 60) × your hourly rate

Output	Minutes	Cost	Value	Do it?

The realistic answer

For most people, the ranking comes out roughly like this:

1. Clips from existing video — cheapest adaptation there is, if you already filmed
2. Short posts — cheap, and where most reach is
3. Email — small reach, highest conversion, usually worth it
4. Thread / carousel — good reach, moderate cost
5. Short video from scratch — expensive; only worth it on your best sources
6. Long adaptation for another platform — rarely worth it unless that platform is a real channel for you

The diminishing returns check

Each additional adaptation of the same source reaches fewer new people. Track it:

Adaptation #	Reach	New to you?	Still worth it?
1
2
3
4
5

Most people find the curve falls off sharply after four or five. Stop there and put the time into the next source instead.

The hidden cost

The cost that does not appear in any of the tables above: audience fatigue.

Seven adaptations of a mediocre source teaches your audience that your name means thin content. That cost is delayed, cumulative, and does not show up in this week's numbers.

The defence is a quality gate, not a calculation: would this be worth reading if it were not derived from anything? If no, do not publish it, however cheap it was to make.

Monthly review

Month	Sources created	Adaptations	Best performer	Worst	What I will stop doing

The last column is the one that improves things.