7 ms·

The guy has earned a net worth of maybe $700 million starting with YouTube. Saying it's all a bunch of contrived bullshit hides the fact the he is obviously bri

• abeyer 2y ago
  Maybe... but I read it more as (and tend to agree with) blow it off because it's explicitly an approach that makes the world a worse place in almost every way except perhaps your bank account balance. It's possible to be successful without being mercilessly amoral and there's a big difference between not personally caring for a product vs thinking a product is toxic and holding your nose anyway for the sake of a paycheck.
  • np_tedious 2y ago
    If you really think that, then you should be all the more interested in what it means to execute on that allegedly-harmful effort well vs poorly
    • abeyer 2y ago
      While there's merit to the "know your enemy" approach, I wouldn't expect everyone to take it.
  • oulipo 2y ago
    exactly
  • zulban 2y ago
    You seem to be arguing there's no use in learning about immoral businesses.
    • __loam 2y ago
      I mean should we be learning about how to run a private equity firm that buys up all the heart clinics in a metropolitan area then jacks up prices? It's not really that interesting unless you're writing anti-trust legislation. I'm not saying Mr.Beast is even that bad but spare us the patronizing attitude at least.
      • tdeck 2y ago
        A person could read this document without once thinking "this is how I'm going to do things". In fact, the first I heard of it was from people describing portions specifically to decry manipulative and toxic behaviors. In your particular example, lawmakers don't wake up one day and decide to write anti-trust legislation. They do it in response to sustained pressure from constituents who must first understand what's going wrong and propose (hopefully somewhat effective) ways to fix it. So understanding what's going on in your own community and how a business specifically is taking advantage is a good thing to do if you have the time and inclination.
• tshaddox 2y ago
  Sure, there are different ways to be commercially successful and most probably require immense talent and hard work. Doesn’t really contradict any particular value judgment of the type of content he produces though.
• debacle 2y ago
  His interviews are just another part of his business, and evidence shows that much of what he says during them is not factual.
• oulipo 2y ago
  that's exactly the problem... why the fascination with "money" and "big"? The world has real problems... called environmental collapse and climate change. Why not working on those It's actually EASY to make money selling shit. It's HARD to solve a real problem to make everyone's lives better
  • brookst 2y ago
    I don’t disagree, but surely it’s even easier to bemoan that other people aren’t doing enough of the right things than it is to devote one’s own life to those kinds of problems.
    • oulipo 2y ago
      it wasn't my point, my point was that we culturally celebrate "earning a lot of money" as "success" even though when you look carefully you see that they simply are ruining the planet... that's stupid and it should stop
  • sixothree 2y ago
    I am as far from a fan as you can get. But calling it shit just demonstrates how little people understand, not how refined their tastes are. It reflects poorly on you guys.
    • oulipo 2y ago
      "I spent 24h in Ketchup" is "refined taste" ?
• brookst 2y ago
  I like your perspective but I don’t think liking coffee is the right comparison. It’s closer to reading a manual for a successful casino, where a lot of it is about manipulation rather than creating value. Obviously Mr. Beast isn’t as far out ethically as casinos, but IMO more in that direction than coffee tea preferences.
  • ninetyninenine 2y ago
    Both perspectives are somewhat true. Mr. Beast is building the best YouTube videos. It is a quality product and it is entertainment. It’s garbage for education or self improvement but it’s legit for entertainment and you can’t dismiss entertainment as a net bad for the world, not completely. You both are right and wrong in a way. Parent poster who only had negative things to say is totally out of touch.
    • sverhagen 2y ago
      "Best" and "quality product" by a certain metric, ka-ching. I assume that the leaked PDF lays out what the metrics are that matter to them, but the article kinda skipped over how it's a choice what to consider "best". There's a lot of "quality" videos on YouTube by different metrics than MrBeast videos, that I enjoy watching quite a bit more.
    • latexr 2y ago
      > Mr. Beast is building the best YouTube videos. It is a quality product and it is entertainment. Hard disagree. Is he making the most profitable, most clicked, or most viral videos? Maybe. That’s objectively quantifiable and I’ll give you that. But “best” is very subjective. I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass if Mr Beast stopped making videos and deleted his account today. His videos are the audiovisual equivalent of junk food: not good for you; negatively addictive; and big shady business. Give me Folding Ideas any day. Now those are some quality and entertaining videos. The kind I save up to savour with some wine. That’s my definition of best. Yours will differ, but that’s the point. https://www.youtube.com/@FoldingIdeas https://www.youtube.com/@FoldingIdeas
      • 2y ago
• hypeatei 2y ago
  I read this post because I was curious about how these operations work. What I found is: - Making good YOUTUBE videos is paramount, not quality videos - Be quirky and crazy in videos using a blank check - If something goes awry or you need it faster, also use a blank check - Some advice related to thumbnails and titles (relying on YouTube's current algorithm which could change the next second) The only thing I found semi useful is how he classifies employees using the A, B and C system (e.g. A is top tier, B can be trained to be top tier, and C is dead weight)
  • qwertytyyuu 2y ago
    Pretty sure he regards c players as ones that only “carry their weight” but nothing more
• CooCooCaCha 2y ago
  The problem is our society teaches us to separate a thing from the externalities of the thing. If it really was just about learning then there wouldn’t be a problem. You can learn from anyone. However, it’s not just about learning. People are easily influenced by the author of what they’re learning from. They’ll read a Steve Jobs autobiography and learn some interesting business insights, but also hold him in higher regard and perhaps feel like it’s ok to be a raging asshole. People look up to successful people. It’s entirely appropriate to remind people that it’s not all sunshine and rainbows and perhaps this person has toxic effects they need to be aware of.
• nialv7 2y ago
  I don't like how much people tie success to the amount of money someone earns. (or how many views someone gets on YouTube, for that matter) There are many people who I consider successful that have never earned 700 mil, and there are people who made billions I don't give a fuck about.
  • wfme 2y ago
    I agree on money != success in a broader sense, but we live in a capitalistic society where wealth creation is possibly the top indicator of "success", so in that sense wealth captured and created is _the_ metric.
• Nextgrid 2y ago
  His comment has merit. The Beast business is fundamentally at the mercy of YouTube, the algorithm and their business priorities. In fact Beast's intentional focus on making the best YouTube videos highlights this. Beast is a high-touch content farm, but ultimately still a content farm and vulnerable to the exact same risks as any other one.
  • j45 2y ago
    When the brand is strong and outgrows a platform.. The brand could start their own complementary platform too. Not much different than the content becoming its own media network.
  • slt2021 2y ago
    MrBeast is working on other platforms (tiktok twitch etc) and is working towards diversifying. It is arrogant and lowiq to dismiss what MrBest and his team ahve achieved as "learned to game the yt algorithm"
• mattmaroon 2y ago
  I don’t even think he’s gaming an algorithm. He doesn’t have to. He’s just making videos people will click on and then watch. It’s almost like he’s trying to make something people want. I’ve heard that before somewhere…
  • simonw 2y ago
    If you read the full PDF it’s clear he is very carefully gaming the algorithm: he includes charts showing exactly when people drop off from watching videos, and explains how he has an exact set of rules for how the thumbnail, first minute, 2-3 minutes, 3-6 minutes and 6-end minutes of any video should work. I find the lengths he has gone to in order to design his videos specifically for how YouTube works to be extremely impressive.
    • nitwit005 2y ago
      Statistics about when people drop off, or what thumbnail or content is appealing, is studying human viewer behavior. There's no algorithm telling the users to find it interesting and keep watching.
      • simonw 2y ago
        Talking about “the algorithm” always feels a bit foolhardy to me because it’s undocumented and constantly changing. Given that, it’s pretty clear to me from the full PDF that MrBeast is “gaming” it to the best effect possible given no perfect information. The thing he cares about is if YouTube is going to recommend his video for people to watch, even beyond his own subscribers. He believes that the key to this recommendation mechanism is having a high AVD and AVP (defined on page 5). Given that he has the highest rated account on all of YouTube now I’m inclined to defer to his expertise.
        • mattmaroon 2y ago
          I don’t dispute his expertise, I dispute your interpretation of what he’s doing if you think it’s gaming an algorithm. Perhaps we’re debating semantics. These are metrics one might use even if there’s no algorithm, in fact historically they have. TV shows used to use Neilsen data for similar purposes long before there was YouTube. TV producers would measure audience dropoff and then use that to help writers write more gripping episodes. Google’s hope with their search for decades was that their algorithm was ungameable and that the way to get your site to the top of any result was to make it the best. That’s why they made it a black box and changed it whenever SEO caught on and used it to push junk to the top. That’s had mixed results on the web for sure but it’s probably worked much better with video because you can track these metrics in a way you can’t with text. Also with the web, the page you land on may make Google further money (with ad sense, inspiring more Googling, using a Google product directly, etc.) or it may not, they don’t always own the ad service at wherever you land when you click a search result link. They don’t have the pure financial incentive of just showing you what you want, something you want a little less might make them more money. With YouTube they own it all. The more you watch YouTube the more they make. You’re only clicking ads to other YouTube videos. Everybody on YouTube knows you want a compelling lead in to get the click over to your video, a hook to keep them watching, etc. He’s codifying what they all already know and do. He just is better at it.
• j45 2y ago
  Well said. It smells like some sour grapes in some of these comments. Making videos that click and spread is clearly a skill or everyone would do it.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]