Overall, they do seem to be doing better than those on the left predicted, for example having more subscribers than LBC on YouTube.
That's because the entire social media operation is actually very good. They upload a huge amount of content, and it's all designed to be shared easily. They know what they're doing, which is why a huge amount of their uploads consists of things like "should unborn babies have rights?". They know that by pushing such content, they can access an international audience, which will push their numbers up further. It's also why a lot of their content seems to be so alien, because it's not really intended for British audiences.
Having said that, my overwhelming impression from their YouTube channel is that it's a retirement home for presenters.
There's a great example with Mark Dolan, who stopped being relevant once Balls of Steel ended. He became a crackpot once it was obvious that he wasn't getting any more presenting jobs, and now he just seems to push whatever the latest US loony conspiracy theory is. GB News pushes him as some kind of relevant, big-time figure, but who can remember anything that Dolan presented once Balls of Steel ended? Likewise, look at Kirsty Gallagher, who couldn't find a good presenting job once she left Sky.
Some of the things that they do are very clever and serve a previously ignored niche, such as Arlene Foster hosting coverage of the Orange marches in Northern Ireland. But as a whole, it's very much copying the US format of "OUTRAGED HOST REACTS TO...", where it doesn't matter *what* they say, but it does matter that they talk about it immediately. It's a digital-first strategy that works, although there is a question over how much revenue they're actually generating online.
