Sounds like even if he's not interested in cross posting to Twitter immediately for monetisation reasons, he may make some non-trivial amounts by posting videos which are past the peak on YT. If he's not lowering the total YT view, that's almost pure profit.
Youtube isn't a social network. Which means there isn't the possibility of someone popular e.g. Musk taking exception with a video, retweeting it with an inciteful comment and turning their followers against Mr Beast.
Which would be a problem given his whole strategy is to be apolitical and mass-market.
>"This was a one-off from the biggest YouTuber on earth that got international media attention," Mr Wiskus added.
>"I don't think another creator who pulls in 1% of those impressions is going to put in 1% of that money."
This is the key takeaway from this - MrBeast is big enough to defy gravity and come away with a big enough ad haul. But its no way indicative of other creators' potential for make money on the platform.
I don’t know that the rename is going to stick. The logo is still an X in blackboard bold, but https://x.com/ links now redirect to https://twitter.com/.
My first introduction to Mr. Beast was when he participated in Chess.com's tournament of famous streamers. I think he was rated around 280 elo at the time, which was lower than anyone I had ever seen. I think he's gotten somewhat better since then though.
I may be the only one who has never seen any of MrBeast's video. I looked at some of his videos on youtube, and interestingly, they are overdubbed in my native language (French). Quality is so so though.
My kids watch it. I know some people have mixed feelings about him, but honestly, I don't really see the problem. There's far worse crap on TV, and every now and then, he's really helping people who need it, so I'm fine with it.
Same. I'm very cynical and suspicious about most of the YTers, he seems like he's a decent dude just trying to run a business making entertaining videos. His LinkedIn posts are interesting, he seems like he's enjoying hacking the YT algorithms to make the most money.
He steps into 'problematic' occasionally with the 'make people do things for money' but generally it's all pretty inoffensive fun.
"In the screenshot shared by MrBeast, he reported $263,655 in revenue from nearly 156.7 million "impressions" or about $1.68 per 1,000 impressions."
The CPM number is not back for X, but if you compare it with other platforms, you know why X is struggling.
CPM trend tracking:
https://www.guptamedia.com/social-media-ads-cost
Musk was specifically trying to get Mr. Beast to post videos on X after Mr. Beast was saying it didn't generate enough revenue to be worth the effort the last time he tried.
Because of this, it seems like there was a lot of incentive for Musk to try to do everything in his power to ensure this video in particular got promoted so that Mr. Beast would advertise the fact that he made a significant amount of money from it in order to send the message that X is a viable platform for creators, but for this reason, I would be dubious about drawing any conclusions about X as a video platform in general.
Even if Musk didn't somehow special case this video, there may not be that much monetized video content on X right now, so it's possible that if the X algorithm is attempting to promote monetized video content, that had the effect of mainly promoting this Mr. Beast video when he posted it, in which case the results might be very different once there are a larger number of people posting video content.
I guess with this style of ad, ad buyers get to make organic content part of the ad while still taking the ad directly to the type of people they want... As a broad appeal content creator you can get hitched along for the ride and experience an exposure boost.
With more video content posted on X, I imagine over time this should approximate to how things are on YouTube as this is essentially how Youtube does it: Ads are before the content but hidden behind an innocuous thumbnail; being ad safe is incentivized. But perhaps the timeline approach is different enough that it won't be as ecosystem defining as on Youtube.
In ancient times, in Babylon, Egypt, Greece, the Islamic caliphate, Florence, or Venice, patrons dedicated their financial resources to promoting the most talented artists and scientists.
Today, we promote those who generate the most clicks (with clicks)
And in ancient times we enjoyed the blood sport of humans killing each other.
I genuienly dislike attempts of people to portray that the past was some how more refined or cultured. Low educational entertainment has always existed.
"Extra" is dependent on whether the views on X came from users who would have normally clicked through to YouTube or watch, or users who would not have clicked.
That specific video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuhE6PYnRMc) was rather odd. He gave away "only" $95k in prize money, but also launched a car powered by 10 jet engines off a ramp across 10 scrap school busses, burned down a house with fireworks, and had a giant pit dug into which he crashed a train (after dumping various other things inside). It looked like a series of really expensive ideas that sounded fun, but turned out quite chaotic, felt less fun than many other videos (at least for me), and it is something like #50 by popularity.
I believe he didn't fake any of the actual stunts. Here's a making-of of a jet car for MrBeast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rri83pDN6kc
You'll notice it's a similar setup, but a red car instead of blue, 7 engines instead of 10, a landing ramp at the end, and it didn't clear the school busses. Meanwhile, in the released video, there's 10 engines on a blue car that makes it across the entire bus park. So assuming it's all real, that's at least 17 mini jet engines destroyed (at least I'd assume that none of them were reusable after this). I'd guess their price at $5-20k each (the latter is what I found for the PBS TJ-40 G1, which looks like the engine from the making-of). Add to it all the engineering work that was required, and I wouldn't be surprised if the jet car part alone exceeded half a million.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WEAJ-DFkHE is a more typical video, where he "reviews" expensive plane tickets. Starting by buying out an entire domestic first class section (let's guess this at 15k), two first-class seats on a long-distance flight with Emirates (~20k, going by the listed price which seems realistic), one of those first-class suits (~25k stated), a (again going by stated prices) $100k private flight, an advertising blimp ($300k), and a super-luxury private jet flight ($500k), so around a million dollars just for the flights before accounting for any other production costs.
MrBeast and numerous other huge scale YouTubers are actually boutique production companies. The top tiers of all these platforms have been dominated by operations not individuals for some time now.
Mr Beast makes all of his money to do his videos through sponsorships, partnerships, and by promoting his own product lines.
This is a WAY higher revenue share than YouTube does. He does not earn the full money for making his videos through YouTube ads, I can more or less guarantee this.
Source: I have a YouTube channel that was once very popular.
The CPM was $1.68. If he got that CPM on YouTube, I'm sure he would have far more choice words. A $1.68 CPM would be terrible for a creator of Mr. Beast's size, especially when by his own admission, the video was juiced due to the increased attention it got.
Sure the revenue share is higher, but the pie is almost 15x smaller.
“Views” here meaning “impressions”, so that’s the number of users who scrolled past the video when it showed up in their feed. MrBeast shared actual engagement in another tweet, which was around 30mil.
These statements are so widely researched, cited, and have been true for so long that it is no longer some ambiguous statement. It is fact, cemented in reality. It is the best kind of common sense - true and widely understood.
I don't read about X very often so I was just surprised to see stats that I assumed would be internal to the company stated as fact. It was an honest question.
It would be cool if news articles had citations linking to previous reporting but I realize that's expecting too much.
Unlabeled ads have been popping up more and more frequently on my timeline.
You can tell that they're ads because they're not from accounts you follow and nor retweeted, and you can verify that they are are ads because the three-dot menu includes the "Why this ad?" option.
To save a couple clicks, here’s the main context linked in the article:
“Per X, the MrBeast video is technically not an undisclosed ad. There is a pre-roll ad for Shopify in the video, which is labeled as such. X boosts posts containing pre-roll ads, but because the post itself is not the ad, it doesn't have the label.”
MrBeast has achieved mogul status with what imo is pretty wholesome content. I imagine the core audience is quite young, but I'll watch his videos every now and then.
No pranking, no real adult themes. Lots of silly games that while I might not enjoy are at least not crossing any clear morality lines. It might not be Mr. Wizard but pretty wholesome compared to the other stuff I have seen online.
Additionally from the interviews I have seen from him, he seems grounded and treats his employees well.
There are different ways to define "wholesome" but when looking at clips/videos of that get mass produced these days, I could see classifying his as wholesome.
Fair, I guess in this age of internet media I was thinking of all the harmful content out there and while yes he does pranks, they either seem staged or the kind of prank like we made him think he won a car but we actually bought him a house kind of pranks.
What are you asking? Your question was how is he wholesome. I don't watch MrBeast on any regularity. I have seen his videos though and have seen most of his interviews. I don't have a classification but I can see how would could group his content in the wholesome category, not Wizard but not "Hey bro let me punch you in the face" prank.
Part of his routine is doing outrageously-pricey good deeds, at over a million dollars, such as paying for cataract surgery for 1,000 people. How the heck can a YouTuber afford this? Easy: with the ad revenue of same videos. It turns out people enjoy watching good-deed videos, and these huge giveaways wind up paying for themselves.
