pull down to refresh

Cal Newport interviewed two content creators on YouTube to discuss the very different journeys each took to maintain a successful channel. Both started making content around the same time and became viral after making videos performing crazy stunts and making wacky inventions. One of them, James Hobson, deployed the typical playbook for media companies and prioritized rapid growth and investment, taking out a mortgage for a big warehouse and hiring staff to scale his channel. The other guy, Colin Furze, instead didn't go that route and kept his channel relatively modest and low-key, continuing to film mostly by himself. Both have achieved great success and have more than 12 million subscribers, but Cal thinks Furze's approach is more sustainable and easier to replicate for aspiring content creators.
"Furze’s solo success is a quirky challenge to the traditional narrative that survival requires continually growing, and that a small number of well-financed winners eventually eat most of the economic pie. He demonstrates that in certain corners of the creative economy an individual with minimal overhead can work on select attention-catching projects and earn a generous upper-middle-class income. Beyond this relatively modest scale of activity, however, the returns on additional investment rapidly diminish. As Hobson’s experience suggests, there’s no obvious path for a D.I.Y. video creator to turn his channel into a multimillion-dollar empire, even if he wants to. Furze seems to be maxing out the financial potential of his medium by staying small."
Do you know any content creators who continued to maintain a modest, small-scale channel even after gaining some success? MatthiasWandel comes to mind for me.
this territory is moderated
It's an interesting tradeoff -- it's always seemed hugely attractive to work at a smallish scale, not get beholden to weird overseers, and do stuff that you cared about intensely. Seems so often things get super perverted when you don't.
The divergence between Logseq and Obsidian is a good example. LS took venture money and has been scrambling to figure out how to get a return; they've been in a giant reboot looking for an architecture friendly to harvesting enterprise dollars. They don't put it that way, of course, but it seems true. Meanwhile Obsidian just keeps shipping. They know who they are and what they're trying to be.
Probably harder not to take the money and try to get giant, though.
reply
Good point showing how this manifests in other fields. Cal seems to think this tradeoff is not as lopsided on newer platforms where creators can have a much closer engagement with their audience.
On certain newer media platforms, however, Furze seems like an archetype rather than an exception. E-mail newsletter writers, podcasters, TikTok influencers, and OnlyFans stars follow similar principles to carve out a good living without the need for endless growth and investment. The fact that these formats rely on the Internet is not coincidental. A key element of their success—their ability to support an intimate connection between creators and a dedicated audience—may be inherently easier to achieve online.
reply