zlacker

[return to "How to succeed in MrBeast production (Leaked PDF)"]
1. doix+Nr1[view] [source] 2024-09-16 12:09:25
>>babelf+(OP)
There are lot of comments here disliking MrBeast and what not, but some of the advice can definitely apply to all organizations.

> Your goal here is to make the best YOUTUBE videos possible. That’s the number one goal of this production company. It’s not to make the best produced videos. Not to make the funniest videos. Not to make the best looking videos. Not the highest quality videos.. It’s to make the best YOUTUBE videos possible.

Replace "youtube videos" with whatever the company is trying to achieve. I see it all the time in large organizations, where different teams forget what the goal of the company is and instead get hyperfocused on their teams KPI's to the detriment of the company as a whole.

Lawyers finding problems and trying to stop things from happening instead of finding solutions. Security blocking things and not suggesting alternatives. IT blocking this or that instead of trying solve problems, etc.

◧◩
2. bayind+Vt1[view] [source] 2024-09-16 12:24:36
>>doix+Nr1
> Replace "youtube videos" with whatever the company is trying to achieve.

Some counterpoints:

- Xerox knowingly didn't fix the problematic gear trains to guarantee periodic part changes, prioritizing money over "best copier possible".

- Ford didn't fix Pinto's fuel tank, prioritizing cost minimization over "best possible car in its class".

- Microsoft is did tons of shady things in its OS development history to prioritize domination over "best OS possible", sometimes actively degrading the good features and parts of its OS.

- Dyson's some batteries are notorious for killing themselves via firmware on slight cell imbalance instead of doing self-balancing. Dyson prioritize "steady income via killing good parts early" instead of "building the best vacuum possible".

- Many more electronic and electromechanical systems are engineered with short lives to prioritize "minimizing costs and maximizing profit" over "building the best X possible".

- Lastly, Boeing's doing all kinds of shady stuff (MCAS, doors, build quality, etc.) since they prioritize "maximize shareholder value" over "building the best planes possible".

- ...and there's Intel, but I think the idea is clear here.

◧◩◪
3. folken+tv1[view] [source] 2024-09-16 12:36:41
>>bayind+Vt1
I think this is exactly the point that MrBeast is trying to make.

By being best YOUTUBE videos it means to focus on whatever appeals to the algorithm. It doesn't mean you are better informed, or better entertained, as long as the click-through-rate is great and the minutes people watch the video is maximized.

You could say the same thing is true for Xerox, for them the best doesn't necessary mean that they sell you the best most reliable copier, but the highest grossing product, with a guaranteed post-sale income.

And this is why we can't have nice things.

◧◩◪◨
4. duxup+dw1[view] [source] 2024-09-16 12:41:38
>>folken+tv1
There was a blog post linked on HN a while ago, it was about their start up they ran many years ago. They got traction with clients and were a very "engineering focused" (or similar term) organization. Their code was rock solid.

It was all going great, until suddenly some new company showed up and started taking their customers. Their new competitor's software was a mess with all sorts of incomplete or pure vaporware features.... but they did get features out fast.

They got beat out by Salesforce...

We as people pick the winners with our money, we don't really want nice things.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. sunnyb+2A2[view] [source] 2024-09-16 19:24:20
>>duxup+dw1
I think part of Apple’s success is because they give people nice things.
[go to top]