MrBeast, the attention economy, and Me
Our reality seems to be mediated by the conflict between our lived experiences and the ones we see expressed through the media. After the rise of the smartphone, this conflict of reality is one consistently brought into question.
The Influencer
In order to begin understanding MrBeast, we must first ask the basic question of what being an influencer consists of. Influencers are generally accepted as “a particular type of social media user who leveraged their social media accounts to create a following and to position themselves as a tastemaker or leader in public opinion within their chosen specialty” (Burns, 2021). Thus, these individuals carry influence, except many people perceive them to be just like us. Surely they are, but this air of relatability is imperative to their marketing, as it helps viewers see this person’s opinions as trustworthy. With a loyal fanbase in hand, influencers are a hot commodity for businesses looking to expand their advertising. Influencer marketing is still a growing industry, but there is one idol who remains at the top.
Jimmy Donaldson
Before jumping into MrBeast’s relationship with YouTube, it is important to introduce this generally unassuming man. MrBeast, also known as Jimmy Donaldson, began his YouTube account in 2012 and boasts a subscriber count of 215 Million and a video view count of almost 35 Billion (Socialblade, 2023). This does not include the statistics for his gaming, reaction, and philanthropy channels, which all have over 20 Million subscribers. He is generally known as the ‘Golden Child’ of YouTube, and has become well associated with most people’s YouTube schemas. This status is due to the ridiculous quality of his videos where he creates multitudes of utopic scenarios that seem too good to be true. In each video MrBeast uploads, there is always an investment of at least a million dollars (Dickson, 2022). Of course, these videos do not complete the return on investment, but Donaldson supplements this income through his other channels, along with his Feastables candy business, his ghost-kitchen burger joint, and merchandise sales.
To get a full scope of Donaldson’s process I utilized a very helpful video titled MrBeast Shares His Best YouTube Advice, a compilation containing a variety of MrBeast interviews created by ThinkMedia (2023). To my surprise, Donaldson has a rather straightforward perception of the YouTube algorithm, and a privileged one at that. Before engaging in that discussion, it is important to analyze some of the points MrBeast attributes his success to.
The first is finding improvement through quantity. He says to make at least a hundred videos, and to try and make small improvements over time. This can be through scripting, editing, thumbnails, et cetera. Following this, he emphasizes the importance of a title and thumbnail, as these are the aspects that will bring the viewer to click on the video. In order to keep a viewer once they’ve clicked, Donaldson says the first few seconds of a video are crucial. This leads to pacing- a cornerstone of MrBeast content is his whiplash inducing video pace. He even goes as far to say that “the video should aim to remove any dull moments to retain viewer interest”(ThinkMedia, 2023). To support this video structure, he also notes how creativity is an important facet. He aims to create videos that ‘out-viral’ each other, improving his videos and increasing their stakes in each upload. This formula that MrBeast has created for himself is paired with obsessive dedication. “There’s a five-year point in my life where I was just relentlessly, unhealthily obsessed with studying virality, studying the YouTube algorithm,” (Dickson, 2022).
Considering the landscape of YouTube, one would believe that Donaldson single handedly un-blackboxed the YouTube algorithm. Interestingly, he seems unbothered by the concept of it:
“I mean, essentially by studying the algorithm you’ll learn that you're studying human psychology, right? What do humans wanna watch? Anytime you say the word algorithm, just replace it with audience and it works perfectly… When you make good content, you’ll blow up. It’s not the algorithm…If people are clicking and watching then it gets promoted more. And that’s literally all the algorithm does” (ThinkMedia, 2023).
I find this notion to be both intriguing and troubling. Here is MrBeast living out the American Dream: ‘if you work hard enough, you’ll make it’. Let’s digest this claim that Donaldson has created about the YouTube algorithm together.
To be a Content Creator on YouTube
According to MrBeast’s advice, if you make good content that other people want to watch, the algorithm will promote it. It may come as a surprise to MrBeast, but his algorithmic imaginary is flawed. YouTube is a for-profit company. Their algorithm doesn’t reflect consumer psychology, it reflects profitability. One example of this out of many is how A vlogger, Rowan Ellis, demonstrated that content she had tagged or titled with LGBTQ keywords including ‘lesbian’, ‘gay’ or ‘LGBT’ was hidden in restricted view (Bishop, 2017).
An important aspect of the YouTube algorithm to consider is monetization and demonetization, also known as the livelihood of content creators. MrBeast began reaching success in the monetization of his account, but many creators aren’t granted this level of visibility for a variety of reasons. In order to be monetized, or have advertisements played on a video, a channel must have at least 1,000 subscribers, 4,000 watch hours within 12 months, and must be following ‘Community Guidelines’ (Zappin et al, 2021). While this sounds simple enough, YouTube uses other factors to decide whether or not a channel can be monetized: The channel's ‘main theme’ or visual appeal, the most viewed videos, the newest videos, the most significant proportion of watch time on a channel’s videos, and metadata. What this means is that while a channel may have 1,000 subscribers and over 4,000 watch hours, YouTube holds the final decision for monetization by physically reviewing the channel (Zappin et al, 2021). It is to be noted that one of these variables rely on visual appearance, which is not an objective measuring point.
Demonetization is considered to be a primary way that content becomes censored on YouTube. When a video is demonetized, creators are denied paid advertising on their video. With this denied revenue, their video is less likely to be promoted or recommended, essentially rendering it censored. Because YouTube is such a large platform, an algorithm is used to determine which video becomes censored. Since the censorship algorithm is not public, creators consider demonetization as a proxy for censorship (Zappin et al, 2021).
With lack of clarity on if a channel will be monetized or demonetized, content creators have to make important decisions. As Bucher states in her writing on the algorithmic imaginary (2017): “As vloggers strive for visibility on the platform, their understandings of YouTube’s algorithmic processes are learned and embodied within their own practices. Assumptions about algorithms can influence modes of self-presentation, tone of voice, choice of content covered, words and sentence structures used”. This self-preservation limits the diversity of content produced by creators and fosters a toxic environment between creators and their work. An example of this is seen in an interview from Pederson’s research on how content creators perceive algorithms, where P1 states: “The algorithm forces you to constantly produce content. So you can’t be like: ‘I'm going to do a short film and take a break for a month and a half because short films take time’. You can't do that. You are going to lose hundreds of thousands of followers and you are not going to make any money” (Pedersen, 2019).
YouTube’s recommendation algorithm compared to its censorship algorithm doesn’t seem to line up. Demonetization comes about once an influencer breaches the very unclear ‘Community Guidelines’; if harmful and dangerous content is bound for censorship, then why isn’t MrBeasts “$10,000 Every Day You Survive In A Grocery Store” demonetized? Another interviewee from Pedersen’s report states: “I posted a video about Asian fetishes and I still get comments three years later. People hate it. Maybe that’s what YouTube is pushing”(Pedersen, 2019). Is rhetoric coming from the likes of Andrew Tate or Fresh and Fit not harmful and dangerous? The lack of clarity surrounding the algorithm forces content creators to either suck it up or sensationalize themselves in hopes of hitting the algorithmic sweet-spot. As Bishop (2017) reflects in her article regarding inequalities in the YouTube algorithm, this unfair exercising of control and reification of the status quo is reminiscent of Bourdieu's symbolic violence, defined as ‘the violence which is exercised upon a social agent with their complicity’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). There is always the threat of violence, but creators never know when it will come about; forcing them to be complicit in the trial.
MrBeast and Philanthrocapitalism
With a better understanding of YouTube's monetization process, we can see how the algorithm rewards both ad-friendly and shocking content; content optimized for high engagement. MrBeast’s videos are the epitome of this, most specifically his philanthropy based videos. In a 2023 paper by Miller and Hogg about MrBeast and the audience commodity there is a thoughtful summarization to describe this: “Donaldson had rediscovered a formula which worked particularly well for YouTube and his understanding of what the recommendation algorithm prefers: giving spectacular sums of money away to achieve high clickthrough rate, and a finale or contest aspect to encourage viewers to watch the whole video and see who wins, thus maximizing viewer retention and thus revenue” (2023). He has optimized his videos to a near Taylorist extent; perfect thumbnail, title, theme, pacing, editing, so on and so forth.
These cash giveaways are now the majority of MrBeast’s videos, his philanthropic streak began with a 2017 video titled ‘Giving a random homeless man $10,000’. In this video he states to viewers: “This is now a weekly series where I am getting companies to sponsor my videos, and I am giving one hundred percent of what they pay me away to random people” (MrBeast, 2017). He follows this by saying ‘This is only possible because of Quidd…. What other app does good like this?’ (MrBeast, 2017). We may begin to see how problematics arise once a notable influencer puts a company on a pedestal under the guise of ‘charity’. A more applicable example of Donaldsons’s philanthropic deeds is his more recent endeavor, “Beast Philanthropy”. In the title video for Beast Philanthropy, Donaldson states: “We are taking 100% of the money from this channel and funneling it into the Beast Philanthropy charity. Beast philanthropy is literally funded by your eyeballs” (MrBeast, 2021).
Telling viewers that their eyeballs are funding Beast Philanthropy makes it hard for them to look away. MrBeast chooses to create the explicit link between audience viewership and charitable giving, creating a never ending cycle of monetizing the audience commodity (Miller & Hogg, 2023). The passive work of the audience is the most important aspect of the spectacle: if the ‘act of charity’ wasn’t intended to be uploaded on YouTube, the charitable giving wouldn’t have happened in the first place. In this sense, Donaldson facilitates an affective landscape where his videos prompt that physical interaction will make physical change; and you should feel good about it too.
In the eyes of the algorithm, MrBeast is prime real-estate. He is a modest looking white guy in his early 20’s making feel-good entertaining content with his best buddies. An advertiser’s dream. In these videos Donaldson not only makes himself more attractive to the audience, but he makes the advertisers look worthwhile to the audience in return. Nickel and Eikenberry (2009) argue that content like this “positions charitable acts as a source of entertainment and amusement as much as they are acts of generosity. In doing so, they draw on the symbolic power of charity, a power that reflects positively on the donor or other perceived altruistic actor”. I enjoy how charity is referred to as a symbol. Charitable giving signals both power and a sense of altruistic social responsibility. Charity becomes even more symbolic in the lens of these videos as it is technically performative, and more of an investment into the brand’s image for a mainly Gen-Z audience. For example, consider MrBeast’s video titled ‘I Fed 10,000 Families for Thanksgiving!” (2021) where the sponsor, Jennie-O, donated 10,000 turkeys for him to give out. Miller and Hobbs argue that Jennie-O probably already has a Corporate Social Responsibility budget where these donations come from, and rather than generating new philanthropy, MrBeast Philanthropy is essentially just moving around existing donations (Miller & Hogg, 2023).
The most concerning aspect of Beast Philanthropy is that his videos are priming young viewers to believe that this form of content creation could be the solution to society’s ills, completely stifling the transformative potential of philanthropy as a whole while ignoring the systems of power that reinforce cycles of poverty. (Miller & Hogg, 2023). Donaldson is promoting for people to interact with his videos in the name of charity. The reality of this situation is that Google, the parent company of YouTube, profits the most from these charitable acts out of anyone; the same company that continues to reinforce cycles of discrimination and oppression. Additionally, it is to be noted that these videos only grant visibility to a sliver in the whole of poverty; I can guarantee you will not see a sex worker, drug user, or ex-offender on MrBeast’s philanthropy channel anytime soon (Miller & Hogg, 2023). Bucher (2018) references Foucault on how “spaces are designed to make things seeable, and seeable in a specific way” in relation to visibility as an organization of power; and Donaldson has organized his videos to encapsulate exactly that. MrBeast’s videos do not give any time to question why this person is homeless, why this student is in debt, why this single mother believes she can only catch a break if she wins MrBeast’s sensationalized game show. It's uncomfortable to think about this kind of charity becoming a new standard.
MrBeast and Taina Bucher
I would like to wrap up this exploration through insight from Taina Bucher’s book If…Then (2018). The success of MrBeast draws parallels to concepts of visibility, affective landscapes, and power through the algorithm.
MrBeast is an alluring case when talking about visibility for a number of reasons. It is interesting how YouTube’s algorithm has granted and reinforced Donaldson’s visibility into our popular culture; but it’s not necessary to write anymore about his humble white guy appearance that advertisers love. An engaging argument is that MrBeast acts in a way that could make one perceive him as a ‘game-master of the panopticon’. He is aware of the grasp he has on his large audience, and plants a seed of hope by acknowledging their chance to be in one of his videos through the call to action of subscribing, liking, and commenting. Viewers are willingly engaged in this cycle, hopeful that one day they too will be visible to MrBeast, and eventually, the algorithm. The social media clout of appearing in a MrBeast video could be considered more valuable than money to many young viewers.
This relates to how Donaldson’s YouTube channel could be considered an affective landscape. In If.. Then (2018) Papacharissi (2015) describes affect as “what permits feelings to be felt, it is the movement that may lead to a particular feeling” with Ahmed (2010) following: “To be affected by something is to evaluate that thing” (Bucher, 2018). Affect in relation to algorithms is the way we are prompted to interact with the algorithm, and in turn, the way the algorithm is affected by us. When one approaches the MrBeast channel they may feel a sense of being overwhelmed by the choice, but intrigued by the flashy title and thumbnails. This affective landscape draws us to interact, and upon clicking a video, we are impacted again. These utopic scenes of spectacle usually trigger feelings of both discomfort and awe; which are the best type of videos for viewer retention. In Donaldson’s more philanthropic videos, we are invited to like and share; we evaluate, consciously clicking, thus we are affected. These moments of affect help us come to realize the algorithmic and social imaginary that MrBeast partakes in.
I would consider MrBeast to be a prevalent aspect of YouTube’s algorithmic imaginary, considering the way the public sees how he is rewarded by the algorithm at hand. Bucher presents the algorithm as a social actor which pushes a social narrative. Despite algorithms not having power in themselves, they are “productive in the ordering of the world”, thus disseminating forms of power in unassuming ways (Bucher, 2018). In a space like the Internet which seems to be democratized at first glance, power grows from below; not overhead. This omnipresent power of the internet is seen as productive, not repressive (Lemke, 2012). Donaldson, being an obsessive creator, was rewarded by the algorithm time and time again for his productivity. He is the ideal member of capitalist society: a likable, hard-working, for-profit content farm. The power he achieved through the algorithm was granted by the way in which his content was presented, organized, and indicated as important; as Nick Diakopoulos describes for achieving power through the algorithm in If…Then (2018). This bottom-up power attainment is a story that is supposed to be inspiring rather than frightening.
Conclusion
YouTube’s algorithm is much more than a mirror to consumer psychology. While seeing wads of money given away in the name of charity is a spectacle that many of us find hard to ignore, this type of content creation reflects more about how YouTube prefers to profit; where it’s engaging and looks good on the company. YouTube’s sneaky demonetization algorithm gatekeeps visibility for hard-working content creators and randomly rewards creators who produce shocking content, ‘advertiser friendly’ content, or in the best case, both. This exploration of MrBeast and the way he engages his viewers serves as an interesting study in the way users are drawn to interact with a platform in the attention economy, the extent one has to go to gain visibility, and how power is produced and reproduced in the algorithm. Considering our data-capitalism driven society, creators like MrBeast will only continue to expand, keeping us entrenched in the most dense and engaging content possible. After all, all these creators want to do is creatively succeed in a world where quantitative algorithms seem to mediate our reality.
Reference List
Ahmed, S. (2010). Orientations matter. In J. Bennett, P. Cheah, M.A. Orlie & E. Grosz, E. (Eds.) New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics (pp. 234–257). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Beast Philanthropy. (2021). I Fed 10,000 Families For Thanksgiving. [Video]. YouTube. https://youtu.be/ZdU3rWin0EQ?si=aoft8W4zD_Z5DZns
Beast Philanthropy. (2021). I Opened My Own Charity. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.YouTube. com/watch?v=f-empfLWbIk&t=109s
Bishop, S. (2018). Anxiety, panic and self-optimization: Inequalities and the YouTube algorithm. Convergence, 24(1), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856517736978
Bourdieu P and Wacquant LJ. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Bryant, L. (2020). The YouTube Algorithm and the Alt-Right Filter Bubble. Open Information Science, 4(1), 85-90. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2020-0007
Bucher, T. (2018). Cleavage Control: Three stories about algorithmic culture and power in the case of the YouTube ‘Reply Girls. In: Z. Papacharissi (ed), A Networked Self and Platforms, Stories, Connections. New York: Routledge, pp. 125–143
Bucher, T. (2018), If...Then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. Oxford Studies in Digital Politics. (New York, 2018; online edn, Oxford Academic, 19 July 2018), https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190493028.001.0001
Bucher, T. (2017). The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary effects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society 20(1): 30–44.
Burns, K. (2021). The history of social media influencers. Research perspectives on social media influencers and brand communication, 1-22.
Dickson, E. (2022). Is MrBeast for Real? Inside the outrageous World of YouTube’s Cash-Happy Stunt King. The Rolling Stone. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/mrbeast-youtube-cover-story-interview-1334604/?sub_action=logged_in
Lemke, T. (2012). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Boulder, CO: Paradigm
Miller, V., & Hogg, E. (2023). ‘If you press this, I’ll pay’: MrBeast, YouTube, and the mobilization of the audience commodity in the name of charity. Convergence, 13548565231161810.
MrBeast. (2017). Giving a Random Homeless Man $10,000. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.YouTube.com/watch? v=N_GMakKf7G4
Nickel PM and Eikenberry AM. (2009). A Critique of the discourse of marketized philanthropy. American Behavioral Scientist 52(7): 974–989.
Ørmen, J., & Gregersen, A. (2023). Towards the engagement economy: interconnected processes of commodification on YouTube. Media, Culture & Society, 45(2), 225-245.
Pedersen, E. (2019). My videos are at the mercy of the YouTube algorithm: How content creators craft algorithmic personas and perceive the algorithm that dictates their work. Technical Report, University of California at Berkeley.
SocialBlade. (2023). MrBeast Channel. Socialblade. https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCX6OQ3DkcsbYNE6H8uQQuVA
ThinkMedia. (2023). MrBeast Shares His Best YouTube Advice. [Video]. Youtube. https://youtu.be/9DBJXRy5dvk?si=ytzsszO659MHPALl
Zappin, A., Malik, H., Shakshuki, E. M., & Dampier, D. A. (2022). YouTube monetization and censorship by proxy: A machine learning prospective. Procedia Computer Science, 198, 23–32. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.207
Comments
Post a Comment