Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9601366" data-attributes="member: 18">Yeah you're saying that but it's very unconvincing, because all the evidence is against them being "the new big thing" in pop culture generally.You're talking about a bunch of aging has-beens (sorry to say that about people in their 30s lol) with slowly failing YouTube careers trying to transition to television because they think the bell has probably been rung on YouTube. None of these people even have the charm of Hulk Hogan (which is a low bar to clear, brother), we're not even going to get Hulkamania-style low-level pop culture infiltration from them.Sure, but can anyone else repeat that? Or was it a one-off trick?I mean, I know the answer - because he essentially wrote down how he did it, which was by analyzing and then gaming YouTube's metrics, to get himself the maximum possible views and to identify the content that got the maximum possible views, which is this lucky-day and quasi-game-show-y stuff directed at literal children (who don't have any money, but are being advertised at). None of this content is stuff he was personally invested in (and that's true at the start too, as much as you may like to pretend it was different). It's all stuff he decided to do because he knew the algorithm would favour it.No-one else is going to be able to do that in the same way again, and he's already failing at it, because he has a brand now, and he can't really pivot from that - or doesn't seem to have been able to find a way to, given his views fall month-on-month.Also, nobody knows how much money he actually has except him, and you're comparing him to people who were actually directly paid money, whereas his is all tied up in his business. Your mistakes is you think he's a star. He's not. He could die tomorrow and if one of his acolytes followed the rules he laid down in his very detailed manual (which got leaked a few months ago - it's mostly, like 85%+ sensible stuff, just peppered with a dash of borderline criminality, manipulation/bullying/intentional deception - of third parties, not his employees, though there's bit a bit of that too  and intentional ignorance of and intentional failure to comply the law, particularly environmental law) and probably keep the brand going just fine.That obviously wouldn't be true with any of the people you used as examples. He's an uncharismatic child entertainer who got into his position not by being the most entertaining inherently, or having any charm or anything, but by gaming YouTube's algorithm and targeting the softest possible audience with content. This isn't me "meanly" saying this about him. He's explained this at length. He's been fairly open about it - and his manual is even more detailed about it.His brand is a bit closer to Oprah in some ways, but Oprah relied on Oprah, where MrBeast... it's just a brand.I don't think any YouTubers or TikTokers are going to be "the next big pop culture trend". Now some kind of activity or idea that emerges first on social media? That easily could be. The people themselves? Probably not, not unless that person has incredible star power and isn't just essentially relying on "children love my content because I used a computer to determine what content children loved".</blockquote>

Verification