Full Transcript

·YouTLDR

How to Build a Personal Brand (Full Course)

6:22:28EnglishTranscribed Jul 22, 2026
0:00

Right now, you're on one of two paths.

0:02

Path one is the forgettable brand. You

0:04

post content randomly, hoping that

0:06

something's going to stick. People have

0:08

no idea who you are or what you do, so

0:10

they do not engage, and they definitely

0:12

don't buy. Now, path number two is the

0:14

intentional brand. This is where you own

0:17

what people associate with you, and your

0:19

content builds trust and moves people

0:21

toward a decision. If you're on path

0:23

number one right now, this course is

0:25

going to get you onto path number two

0:28

and save you years and hundreds of

0:31

thousands of dollars worth of mistakes.

0:33

And if you have identified that you're

0:35

on path number two, odds are you've

0:37

probably hit a ceiling that you have not

0:39

been able to break through. This course

0:40

is going to help you smash through that

0:42

ceiling and actually hit the scale that

0:44

you've been wanting. This course is not

0:46

just theory. It's built from real

0:48

execution and my 16 years of experience

0:50

in building brands online. So, here's

0:52

what we're going to cover. Section one

0:53

is branding. Section number two is going

0:55

to be content strategy. Section number

0:57

three is going to be building your team.

0:58

And finally, in section four, we're

1:00

going to talk about monetizing your

1:02

brand. So, the first section is

1:03

branding. And I think that we should

1:05

start off with some definitions here so

1:07

that we are on the same page and

1:09

everything that we discuss moving

1:11

forward is from the same understanding.

1:13

I define branding as a pairing of

1:15

things. I define good branding as an

1:18

intentional pairing of relevant things

1:20

done consistently and what you get from

1:23

that is the byproduct which is brand.

1:25

Brand is when the audience inherently

1:27

associates those things together. Let's

1:30

use the most classic example known to

1:32

man. Nike and Michael Jordan. Nike

1:36

entered the basketball market and they

1:38

wanted to have their audience or

1:41

customers associate them with athletic

1:44

greatness. specifically within the

1:46

basketball industry. So, what did they

1:48

do? They intentionally paired themselves

1:51

with greatness in basketball. Michael

1:54

Jordan. I I can't think of another name

1:56

that's more synonymous with victory,

1:58

with winning, with greatness. Or take

2:01

Gary Vaynerchuk in content. The man

2:03

literally wrote a book called Crush It.

2:05

I don't even remember when it came out.

2:06

I think 2009. And he was talking about

2:08

how people are going to make money

2:10

talking about the Smurfs on YouTube. The

2:14

man is synonymous with content and over

2:16

time his actions done repetitively have

2:20

led us to draw that association. He has

2:23

intentionally paired himself with

2:26

content among many other things. Or my

2:28

absolute favorite that I always have to

2:30

inject at any chance I get,

2:32

Harley-Davidson. Harley-Davidson for

2:34

many years in their marketing has

2:36

intentionally paired themselves with

2:37

freedom. And so what is the association

2:40

that the customer base draws upon when

2:42

they think of Harley-Davidson? Freedom.

2:45

The open road, tearing off their suit

2:47

and going out and hitting the road. And

2:49

so ultimately what we are trying to do

2:52

is think of what are the associations

2:55

that we want our audience to inherently

2:57

draw when they think of our name. And

2:59

the beauty of this is it actually makes

3:02

it operational for you. All you have to

3:04

do is deliberately and intentionally

3:06

pair yourself with the association that

3:08

you want your audience to make. It takes

3:10

all of the woo woo fluffy magic out of

3:12

what brand is and it makes it something

3:14

that you can actually do. Now,

3:16

real quick, my team and I put a lot of

3:18

effort into building out this course and

3:20

a lot of accompanying worksheets and

3:23

playbooks. So, please take advantage of

3:25

them. What you're going to notice is at

3:27

the bottom of the screen here, we're

3:28

going to have little icons that tell you

3:31

what sheet and how you can download it.

3:34

I would highly encourage you, please

3:37

download these sheets and follow along.

3:39

Now that we know what brand and branding

3:41

are, we need to define what your brand

3:45

is. Now, your brand actually exists

3:47

whether you define it or not. Your

3:50

audience might be defining it for you. I

3:51

would rather we be intentional and take

3:53

control. The first step in defining your

3:55

brand is defining your desired outcome.

3:59

I like to work from the end goal and

4:01

reverse engineer our way backwards. And

4:03

so here is how I actually reverse

4:05

engineer our desired outcome to today.

4:08

It is called the brand journey

4:09

framework. And it's just four simple

4:11

questions, but I can't tell you how many

4:14

people have told me how impactful this

4:16

was and gave them the exact road map of

4:19

how to go about building their brand. So

4:23

question number one, again, like I said,

4:25

we're starting from the end in mind and

4:27

working our way back. So what is our

4:29

desired outcome? What do we want to have

4:31

happen? Question number two is, what do

4:33

I have to be known for in order for that

4:35

to happen? Question number three is,

4:38

what do I have to do in order to be

4:41

known for that? Unfortunately, building

4:43

a brand isn't just about things that we

4:45

say, it's about our actions. And so if

4:47

we want to be known for something, in

4:49

order to be known for it, we got to do

4:51

the to be known for it. And then

4:53

finally, the last question takes us to

4:56

right now. What do I have to learn in

4:59

order to do that? So if I'm going to do

5:02

things in order to be known for

5:04

something to then get my desired

5:05

outcome, well, right now, I might not

5:08

know how to do those things. And so this

5:10

gives you day one exactly what to do.

5:14

You need to learn these specific items

5:16

and then you need to do those things and

5:19

then you will become known for those

5:20

things and then eventually the desired

5:22

outcome occurs. If you have clarity on

5:24

your outcome, this ensures that every

5:26

decision you make along the way lines up

5:29

with what you want to have happen. The

5:31

majority of people that are building

5:33

their brand online that are posting

5:34

content, I promise you

5:37

99.9% of them have no idea what they're

5:39

trying to accomplish with their content,

5:41

with their brand. And so what they're

5:42

doing is they're wandering aimlessly.

5:44

There's an amazing example that I I love

5:46

to share from Alice in Wonderland.

5:48

There's a moment where Alice comes to a

5:49

fork in the road. There's two different

5:50

directions she can go. And the cat,

5:52

Chester the cat, I believe is his name.

5:54

And he's sitting in the tree and she

5:57

says, "Which way should I go?" And he

6:00

goes, "Well, where are you trying to end

6:02

up?" And she says, "I don't know." And

6:04

the cat responds with something so

6:06

powerful. He says, "Well, then either

6:08

way, we'll take you there. If you do not

6:11

have a desired outcome that you are

6:12

making your decisions off of, you're

6:14

going to go somewhere, but it might not

6:16

be the place that you want to be. Now,

6:18

after you define your desired outcome, I

6:21

would argue probably the most important

6:23

part of defining your brand is defining

6:25

your associations or the associations

6:28

that you desire to have. Ask yourself,

6:30

what do I want to be associated with?

6:32

What do I want the audience to think of

6:34

when they hear my name? Here's an

6:35

example. Do you want your name to be

6:37

tied to business, trustworthiness, or

6:39

mental well-being? Everything you create

6:41

should reinforce those associations.

6:44

This is where intentionality in branding

6:46

starts. Everything you create should

6:48

reinforce those associations. This right

6:51

here is where intentionality in branding

6:54

starts. So, a very meta example here is

6:57

that I am creating this course and the

7:00

content that we're going to be putting

7:01

out to intentionally pair Rston, my

7:04

consulting firm, with value, with

7:07

scaling brands, with understanding

7:09

attention, with building brands that not

7:11

only scale, but last and build

7:14

trustworthiness within their community.

7:16

This is literally what I'm doing. I'm

7:17

putting together a massive course right

7:19

now that is going to outline all of this

7:22

and

7:24

consistently pair myself with those

7:26

attributes that I want you to draw upon

7:29

when you hear about Rston Consulting.

7:32

So, we're going to continue to create

7:33

content like this talking about scaling

7:36

your brand. We are intentionally pairing

7:39

ourselves with the relevant thing

7:41

scaling brands and we're going to do

7:43

that consistently through our content.

7:45

Now, we just went over what you want to

7:47

be associated with. I would argue this

7:49

next part is far more important and

7:52

something that 99.9% of people

7:55

completely ignore, which is what do you

7:58

not want to be associated with? A lot of

8:00

people make the mistake of assuming that

8:02

brand is only about what you want to

8:05

have happen. But a lot of what building

8:07

a brand and a successful brand is,

8:10

especially in today's saturated market

8:11

where there's so many people online

8:13

talking about the same subject matter as

8:15

you, you can stand out by what you

8:18

choose not to associate with. This is

8:20

ultimately how you protect your brand.

8:22

This is how you keep it from deliluding

8:24

and being misinterpreted. Think of how

8:26

many people you see online whose

8:27

reputation probably has nothing to do

8:29

with what they wanted or what their

8:30

desire was. often times that is a

8:33

byproduct of not being intentional with

8:35

what they are not going to associate

8:37

with. If you don't actively shape your

8:39

associations, your audience is going to

8:41

do it for you. Now, this next little

8:43

example and explanation here is going to

8:45

get a little technical. So, I'm actually

8:46

going to read off of the screen to the

8:49

right of the camera right now um so that

8:51

I don't mess this up because I think

8:52

it's really important and I want to make

8:54

sure that we go through this exactly how

8:56

I meant to. If we believe that branding

8:59

is a pairing of things and that good

9:02

branding is an intentional pairing of

9:04

relevant things done consistently and

9:06

that that then creates brand which is

9:09

when the audience inherently associates

9:11

those things together then we're on the

9:13

same page of what brand and branding is.

9:15

But what you'll notice is intentional is

9:18

not a good or bad statement. Intentional

9:22

doesn't mean right or good. Meaning, you

9:25

could be intentional with pairing your

9:28

brand, but with the wrong things done

9:31

consistently. Unfortunately, what this

9:33

ends up leading to is the audience

9:35

drawing the association between your

9:38

brand and those wrong things. Here's an

9:40

example that I have to give a qualifier

9:42

for. I have some pretty strong views and

9:44

opinions on some of the online creators

9:46

in the business education space. All

9:49

love and respect to everyone. Everyone

9:51

can do their own thing. This is Caleb

9:52

Rston's individual opinion. Strongly

9:56

believed, loosely held. There are some

9:58

very scammy, sketchy in

10:01

the online education space. They are

10:03

untrustworthy and they make content

10:06

trying to ladder up to selling some

10:08

course online. If you choose to

10:11

consistently appear in content with

10:13

them, whether it's them inviting you on

10:15

their podcast or you guys doing a collab

10:17

video together, if you do that

10:20

consistently, aka you intentionally pair

10:23

yourself with the scam artist online,

10:26

the untrustworthy character, the snake

10:29

oil salesman, guess what happens if you

10:32

do that consistently? Your audience will

10:35

start to inherently associate you with

10:38

that crowd. Is that good for trust? No,

10:42

not at all. In fact, this is some of the

10:44

biggest problems that you see with a lot

10:46

of creators in the business education

10:48

space right now. There are a lot of

10:50

individuals that actually have a lot of

10:52

value and a lot of good to add into the

10:54

world and education and able to

10:57

literally show people a whole new way to

10:58

approach their business, their career.

11:00

But the problem is is they go on all

11:02

these podcasts with these

11:04

individuals that I cannot trust. And by

11:07

doing that enough times, I no longer

11:09

feel that I can trust that individual.

11:12

So, as much as you want to pair yourself

11:13

with the right things,

11:15

please, please be diligent about what

11:19

you choose not to associate with. If you

11:22

get a bad feeling in your gut, if you

11:25

don't think that it's the right move,

11:26

it's not worth the exposure. I'm going

11:28

to open up the kimono here for a second.

11:31

I have people right now, not a lot

11:33

because I'm not that interesting, but I

11:35

have a couple of people that have been

11:36

asking me to come on to their podcast.

11:38

And so far, I've said yes to everyone,

11:40

but there are some individuals out there

11:42

that I know will probably eventually

11:43

reach out and ask me to come on the

11:45

show. Now, if they have that kind of a

11:48

brand, I will choose to not go on the

11:52

show, even if it's the biggest audience

11:54

that I could get in front of because

11:56

ultimately awareness is not worth the

12:00

trade. What are those people going to be

12:01

aware of? They're going to be aware of

12:03

you in light of that association. All

12:06

right, we've defined our brand. So now

12:09

we need to position it. Now your goal

12:11

isn't to just blend in. You actually

12:13

want to find what is missing in your

12:15

industry and own that gap. So it might

12:19

be the information that you have. It

12:21

might be the philosophy you have around

12:23

a certain subject matter like branding

12:25

for example. Or it might be your

12:27

personality and your unique take on the

12:30

same information. You might just be able

12:32

to reach a whole different audience that

12:34

wasn't able to connect with some of the

12:37

other creators in that space.

12:39

Ultimately, what you are looking for is

12:41

the gap of what is missing and then you

12:44

fill it. Now, how do you go about

12:46

finding out what is missing or how do

12:48

you own that gap? Well, ask yourself

12:50

these two questions. What are the people

12:52

that are currently creating content in

12:54

the space that I'm wanting to occupy?

12:56

What are they saying that I disagree

12:57

with? How can I take what has been

13:00

taught for years or shared for years and

13:03

bring a fresh perspective to the table?

13:05

Here's a really good example. If

13:06

everyone in your industry is focusing on

13:09

going viral and getting lots of views

13:11

and and always doing that, maybe leaning

13:14

into building a long-term trustbuilt

13:17

brand will stand out. That's what I'm

13:19

trying to do here, right? A lot of my

13:21

counterparts who I love and respect,

13:24

they emphasize virality and getting

13:26

views and there's a lot of benefit to

13:28

that. But where I'm coming in and kind

13:30

of filling the gap is there's not a lot

13:32

of people online talking, especially in

13:35

the form of free content like this in a

13:37

way that shares with you how to build a

13:39

brand that lasts. If you just emphasize

13:42

views, for example, the moment the

13:44

algorithm changes, nobody's going and

13:46

searching for your name. On the flip

13:47

side, if you build a brand that has

13:49

trustworthiness and deposits a lot of

13:51

goodwill into the marketplace, the

13:53

moment the algorithm changes, your

13:54

audience will be searching for you. And

13:56

so that is a prime example of me

13:58

contrasting myself with the others in

14:00

the industry. That's me noticing a gap

14:03

where nobody's talking about this or

14:04

very few, and me wanting to fill it, not

14:07

only with my unique perspectives and

14:09

philosophies, my experience doing this

14:11

for 16 years, but also maybe a unique

14:14

and quirky personality that some people

14:17

will really hate and then a tiny few of

14:20

you might actually resonate with. Now,

14:21

the other way to bring a fresh

14:23

perspective is to share your story. So,

14:26

what I would encourage you to look at is

14:27

what is different about your story than

14:30

everybody else's. Now the the obvious

14:32

answer is everybody's story is

14:33

different, right? But what is it that

14:35

makes you uniquely you? That you can

14:38

present all of your information, your

14:41

beliefs through that lens. Ultimately,

14:44

your story is your brand's secret

14:46

weapon. This is what makes you unique

14:48

and makes you stand out from everybody

14:50

else in the crowd. Nobody else has the

14:52

same come-up story or origin story that

14:54

you do. An exercise to help you do this

14:57

is actually to list out pivotal moments

14:59

in your story, in your life, challenges

15:02

you've overcome, turning points in your

15:04

career, that moment where you got laid

15:07

off at your job, and then all of a

15:09

sudden ended up finding the next gig,

15:11

and it's the greatest thing ever. And

15:13

any unique experiences that have shaped

15:15

your perspective. For me, working with

15:17

Gary Vaynerchuk completely changed my

15:20

perspective. I I had a completely

15:22

different understanding of what it meant

15:24

to create content online with your

15:27

audience in mind first rather than

15:30

making to make you look good. Share

15:32

that in your content. And

15:33

ultimately like stories resonate way

15:35

more with people than you saying typical

15:38

tropes and attributes like hardworking

15:41

or innovative or hustling. Nobody gives

15:44

a about that. They want to hear the

15:45

story behind the hard work. For example,

15:47

instead of me being like, I'm a hard

15:49

worker, I would tell the story of when I

15:51

was editing Gary Ve's trash talk series

15:53

and how I would come in on Sunday, and

15:56

start editing 12 to 14 hours a day,

15:58

Sunday through Thursday, and then I

15:59

would arrive in the office at 6:00 a.m.

16:01

on Thursday, and I would not leave the

16:03

office until 2:00 p.m. on Friday. I'm

16:06

not going to do the math for you right

16:07

now, but I believe that's about 32 hours

16:09

straight. the story and if I went more

16:11

into detail would be far more compelling

16:13

than me just telling you about working

16:15

hard or how I work hard. Another example

16:17

is instead of Jeff Bezos talking about

16:20

how resourceful he is, tell the story

16:22

about how he used a door as his

16:24

desk. Nothing will say resourceful more

16:27

than telling that story. Share your

16:29

stories. That is what your audience is

16:30

going to resonate with. Now, for those

16:32

of you who have made content online, the

16:35

thing that you're probably very aware of

16:37

is there's a lot of skepticism. There

16:39

are a lot of objections that the

16:41

audience has towards your content,

16:44

especially if you are in the education

16:46

space. Legitimately, the majority of

16:48

people watching your content are

16:50

thinking the entire time, why would I

16:52

trust this? Does this actually work?

16:54

Okay, cool. That worked for you, but

16:55

does it work for me? How would it work

16:57

in this scenario? Have you done this in

16:59

multiple different industries? They are

17:01

constantly thinking of their objections

17:03

to what you have to say. And often times

17:06

those objections and that skepticism

17:08

appears in the comments. Here's what I

17:11

would like you to do. Instead of

17:13

allowing that to take place in your

17:15

comments, start looking at your comment

17:18

section, getting a greater understanding

17:20

of the skepticism and objections that

17:22

commonly occur within your audience and

17:24

start addressing them in the content.

17:27

Just like a great VSSL overcomes

17:30

objections before a prospect hops on a

17:32

sales call, treat your content the same

17:35

way. Why would you not try to overcome

17:37

the objections that your audience is

17:38

going to have? If ultimately your goal

17:40

is to educate and change the actions of

17:43

your audience after they consume your

17:44

content, why would you make it harder

17:47

for them to do that? Let's make it

17:49

easier by overcoming any objection or

17:51

skepticism they're going to have about

17:53

what you're saying in the content

17:56

itself. If you address the skepticism

17:58

and the objections proactively in your

18:00

content, what you do is you build more

18:03

trust and credibility. When you answer

18:05

the questions before they're even asked,

18:08

you remove friction, and then it makes

18:11

it easier for your audience to actually

18:14

change their actions and be educated.

18:17

All right, the next one is don't be a

18:18

robot. This is something that a

18:20

lot of people making content online

18:22

really struggle with, and I completely

18:25

understand why. There's this weird

18:27

object that you're talking into called a

18:29

camera and a lens. And it's like this

18:32

very freaky ordeal, right? Even right

18:35

now, I am doing my best to be a human,

18:37

not a robot, right? And bring my

18:39

personality into this content rather

18:42

than just monotone giving the

18:45

information that I want to. And part of

18:47

being a human is sharing not only the

18:51

wins, but also the losses. Share the

18:54

failures that you've had along the way

18:56

and the lessons that you learned from

18:59

those failures. Think about it. The

19:01

friend that you have that's always

19:02

sharing how great everything is and how

19:05

they just keep winning eventually, one,

19:07

they just become kind of

19:09

annoying, right? But two, do you really

19:11

believe that? Do you really believe that

19:13

life is so perfect and that everything

19:14

is going exactly their way? No. Imagine

19:18

not knowing this individual. So from

19:20

afar, your audience is going to be even

19:22

more skeptical of you if all you're

19:24

doing is sharing all your W's. On the

19:26

flip side, if you are vulnerable and you

19:29

share your losses, what you will find is

19:32

a lot more people will trust you and

19:34

connect with you and relate with you. I

19:36

actually think that losses are more

19:39

relatable than wins. And we can learn a

19:42

lot more from losses than maybe we can

19:44

learn from wins. And ultimately, if you

19:47

share your losses and the lessons

19:49

learned from them, you help your

19:51

audience potentially, if they choose to

19:54

take action, avoid making those same

19:57

mistakes. A really good example of this

19:59

is someone that I worked for uh several

20:01

years ago. When I started with her, her

20:04

whole audience thought that she was a

20:06

robot and viewed her as not human. She

20:11

just came across as like an information,

20:14

you know, overload. and she was just

20:16

sharing her knowledge which was a lot

20:18

but it had no substance or personality

20:20

to it. And so when I started working

20:23

with her it was my number one goal to

20:25

show her human side to take it from just

20:30

information just d to like show

20:33

personality right and and this

20:35

individual she had an amazing

20:36

personality. She was hilarious so funny

20:39

quirky everything. But you would never

20:41

know that just watching the content. In

20:43

fact, a lot of people would meet her in

20:45

real life and be like, "You're so much

20:48

nicer and funnier and than I expected

20:50

you to be. I actually kind of expected

20:52

you to be a jerk." But like, in no way

20:54

was that the case, but you wouldn't know

20:56

it from the content she was making. And

20:59

so, I really encourage you to do your

21:02

best to bring your true self, bring your

21:05

whole self into your content. Seriously,

21:08

it will make you stand out. There's

21:10

nobody else that's actually like you. An

21:12

example for sharing your failures is in

21:14

my first YouTube video, I share a

21:16

failure. I share the story of how one of

21:18

my main clients cut my monthly

21:21

compensation in half and I had to go and

21:24

fire my friends that I had hired. That

21:27

was a real shot to my ego and isn't my

21:30

favorite thing to share necessarily, but

21:32

I think one there's a big lesson that I

21:35

shared that is accompanied with that

21:39

failure. But also, I think that you guys

21:42

watching it probably, if you did see

21:44

that video, felt a little bit closer to

21:47

me because I appeared more human. That

21:51

transparency ultimately builds trust way

21:54

faster than somebody who is just

21:55

constantly posturing and trying to show

21:57

you how great they are. This

21:59

next one is actually uh really tough for

22:01

a lot of people to do. And I completely

22:04

understand why. The point is to listen

22:06

to your audience. The hard part or the

22:09

difficulty in this is there's a lot of

22:11

people that make content that get a

22:12

decent amount of hate in their comments.

22:15

They get a lot of people that are just

22:17

frankly being And what

22:20

I would encourage you to do is do your

22:22

best to ignore those individuals. And

22:24

real quick, just like an anecdote on

22:25

this is if you ignore the praise, you

22:28

can ignore the hate. If you get really

22:31

high off of the praise when people

22:33

applaud you in the comments, you're

22:35

going to be very vulnerable to being

22:37

very depressed when you see the hateful

22:40

comments that are tearing you down. But

22:42

aside from the hateful comments, the

22:44

other comments that you have in your

22:47

posts are actually incredible insights

22:50

into how you should go about navigating

22:52

your brand and the content that you

22:54

create. Especially in the early days, I

22:56

would encourage you to look at the

22:58

individuals that know you, your friends,

23:01

co-workers, and any audience that you

23:03

may already have. What are they

23:05

associating you with? What do they

23:07

praise you for? What do they applaud you

23:08

for? What do they admire in you and what

23:11

keeps them wanting to either continue

23:13

hanging out with you, talking to you,

23:15

what keeps them coming back? What you

23:17

want to do is use this feedback to

23:18

refine your positioning and ultimately

23:20

know what you can double down on. A

23:22

really big example for me is, and this

23:26

will sound weird coming out of my mouth,

23:28

but please take this with like a humble

23:30

tone that I hope I have here. Something

23:32

very interesting that I've noticed is

23:33

when I hop on Zoom calls with potential

23:35

clients or with clients, like 90% of the

23:37

calls end with one or more of the

23:40

members on the other team mentioning how

23:42

much they love my energy and

23:44

personality. Again, it feels really

23:46

weird for me to say this, so please hear

23:48

it correctly, but I started noticing

23:49

that and I realized, man, to my point

23:52

earlier, I should really make sure that

23:55

I bring that same personality and energy

23:57

into the content that I make cuz it's

23:59

who I am. It's how I actually roll. Like

24:02

I I'll make a statement and then I do a

24:03

little side comment on. I do that with

24:05

all my friends or my family all the

24:07

time. I do it on client calls, on

24:09

discovery calls, anything. And so if

24:12

that is something that people are

24:14

resonating with and liking and giving me

24:16

real time feedback on that they like

24:18

that and enjoy it, why the would I

24:20

not involve that in my content? And so

24:22

this is using my audience and

24:25

technically I wouldn't even call them my

24:27

audience, but essentially they are. and

24:29

using their feedback to refine how I

24:32

present myself in the content, which

24:35

ultimately the way I'm going to present

24:36

myself is being fully me. Now, another

24:38

example is if your audience really

24:41

values your practical advice, your no

24:44

BS, nononsense, straight to the point

24:47

advice, I would really encourage you to

24:49

lean into it. If you start seeing a

24:52

trend emerging where people are, you

24:54

know, adding more filler fluff and, you

24:57

know, comfort creators, that's great,

24:59

but that's not you. Don't follow a trend

25:02

just because it's a trend. Stay true to

25:05

who you are and what your audience

25:07

appreciates most about what you are

25:10

putting out. Another example of

25:12

listening to your audience and actually

25:14

making a very good change is there was

25:17

another client that I had worked with uh

25:19

a while back and they fell into this

25:22

pattern of honestly getting way too

25:24

intense in their content and only

25:27

talking about really one subject matter.

25:29

They didn't really diversify and they

25:32

were just hammering one message over and

25:35

over and over that the audience wasn't

25:37

resonating with. It wasn't like, you

25:39

know, you have your haters that are that

25:41

are speaking out and stuff, but

25:42

ultimately you're telling your truth.

25:44

No, like the majority of the audience

25:46

was giving a lot of push back. And so

25:48

what this individual did is they

25:50

listened to the audience. And by

25:51

listening to the audience, they started

25:53

to add more context. They didn't change

25:55

their belief. They didn't change what

25:57

they were saying. They rounded out what

25:59

they were saying and gave more context

26:01

as to why they were pushing this message

26:04

so much. So again, listen to your

26:06

audience and let it shape how you

26:08

present your ideas, philosophies, and

26:11

beliefs. Don't have it change your

26:14

beliefs. Don't cater what you're saying

26:16

just to the audience. Nobody likes that.

26:18

That's what we call a politician. Nobody

26:20

wants that. And now the

26:23

longanticipated brand story framework.

26:26

Your brand story isn't just a before and

26:28

after transformation. It's a series of

26:30

intentional decisions that shape how

26:33

people see you. Now, I tend to believe

26:35

that most story frameworks are a little

26:38

too rigid to actually be practically

26:40

used, especially for many different use

26:41

cases. I think that what they end up

26:43

doing is they assume that every brand

26:45

has some dramatic aha moment, right?

26:47

Some big problem that they have to

26:49

solve. They assume that the founder

26:51

story is the most important one. They

26:53

assume that a brand's identity will

26:55

never evolve. But great brands aren't

26:57

built on a singular moment. They're

27:00

built on consistency, distinction, and

27:03

connecting with the right audience over

27:05

time. So here's a storytelling framework

27:07

that I believe works in all cases.

27:09

Forget the problem transformation

27:11

outcome framework. Okay, I believe that

27:14

that is too narrow. Instead, here is the

27:16

threepart brand story framework. Number

27:19

one is the catalyst. This is why your

27:22

brand exists. Every brand, I believe,

27:25

starts because something needed to

27:28

change. This isn't necessarily always a

27:31

struggle. It might be an opportunity or

27:33

a gap in the market. For example, and I

27:36

don't know this for sure, but I can make

27:38

some pretty good assumptions here. I

27:39

don't think Phil Knight started Nike

27:41

just to be rich. If he did, there's

27:43

plenty of other businesses he could have

27:45

started that had a higher likelihood of

27:46

success. I believe he saw that no other

27:49

companies were fulfilling the demand and

27:51

meeting the needs that the market had.

27:53

In order to determine what your catalyst

27:55

is, I would ask yourself these three

27:57

questions. What needs to change? What do

28:00

you see that others don't? What's that

28:03

opportunity that you see so clearly that

28:06

nobody else can see? And why do you feel

28:08

the need to act on it? If you answer

28:11

these three questions, this is your

28:13

catalyst for your brand. This is why

28:15

your brand exists. Number two is the

28:17

core truth. This is what makes you or

28:19

your company different than everybody

28:21

else in your space. A strong brand

28:24

stands out. It doesn't blend in.

28:26

Blending in ultimately leads to you

28:28

being forgotten. A lot of people

28:30

misunderstand this and there's a lot of

28:32

them online right now. It doesn't mean

28:34

that it's controversy for controversial

28:36

sake. That's where you just get the

28:38

annoyingly loud people on the internet

28:40

that nobody likes. That is not what I'm

28:42

saying here. What I am saying is it

28:44

means having a core conviction that is

28:47

different than everyone else in the

28:50

market and not only having that core

28:52

conviction but sharing it publicly with

28:56

the world. A great example of this is

28:59

actually an artist by the name of Russ.

29:01

Uh Russ has some very unique views on

29:04

how musicians should go about navigating

29:07

their career. He is very very strong

29:10

about how artists should remain

29:12

independent and own the rights to their

29:15

music. He believes that this allows them

29:17

to have creative control but to also

29:19

profit more off of their hard work. What

29:22

does he do with that? He shares those

29:24

beliefs in the form of his music. He

29:27

literally talks about it in his music,

29:29

but then also when he does interviews on

29:31

podcasts or various news networks, he

29:34

reinforces this and shares it heavily.

29:37

So to determine your core truth, ask

29:40

yourself these three questions. What do

29:42

I believe that others do not? What is it

29:45

about my personality that stands out?

29:48

And think about this. We we talked about

29:49

it earlier, but what do people

29:52

compliment you on that you can lean

29:55

into, that you can double down on? The

29:58

example I gave earlier was that people

30:00

on Zoom calls, client calls and stuff

30:02

like that would mention that they love

30:04

my energy and my personality. So what am

30:08

I doing in my content in building my

30:10

brand? Leaning into that and really

30:12

trying to highlight and bring my

30:14

somewhat quirky and weird personality

30:17

into the content. And number three, why

30:19

would the audience care about this? How

30:21

does this impact them? What value does

30:23

it bring for them? If you answer these

30:25

three questions, you'll have your core

30:27

truth. And number three, the proof. This

30:29

is how you reinforce your identity over

30:33

and over and over. I believe that your

30:36

brand is not what you say, it's what you

30:40

do and prove over and over again. Strong

30:44

brands don't just have one past success

30:46

story. They have an ongoing pattern of

30:48

credibility. Another Gary example is

30:50

that he doesn't just talk about volume

30:53

of content and the importance of it.

30:55

He's proved it for like 15 plus years.

30:58

And he reinforces the credibility of

31:01

this statement by talking about what

31:03

he's done not only for his personal

31:05

brand, but all the brands that Vayner

31:07

Media works with for the Super Bowl

31:09

campaigns, for example. The majority of

31:11

their Super Bowl campaigns are

31:13

determined off of high volume social

31:16

content that they do throughout the year

31:18

to test learnings, see what the audience

31:21

resonates with, and that's what they run

31:22

with on the Super Bowl. And he shares

31:24

those stories. So, he is reinforcing the

31:27

credibility over and over and over. So,

31:30

three questions to ask yourself are, how

31:32

does every piece of content I make

31:35

reinforce the associations I want people

31:37

to make with me? What case studies or

31:40

examples can I share that establish my

31:43

credibility? And number three, if

31:45

someone hears your name, what's the

31:47

first thing that they think of? So,

31:49

here's a fun example using myself, the

31:51

catalyst. I saw brands trying to scale

31:54

via just views and impressions, but

31:57

struggling to actually build trust with

31:59

their audience. It wasn't that the

32:00

problem was the content. The problem was

32:02

they were lacking clarity on the big

32:05

picture strategy and what they wanted to

32:07

have happen with their brand. The core

32:10

truth is that I believe that a strong

32:13

brand is built by the intentional

32:16

pairing of relevant things done

32:19

consistently, not just getting virality

32:23

and getting a ton of views and

32:25

impressions. And the proof is that I've

32:27

built many different brands that scale

32:30

businesses to millions and millions of

32:32

dollars in revenue. And I show you how

32:34

to do it completely for free via my

32:36

content. So you can build your brand

32:39

story in three very simple steps. It's

32:42

not rocket science. It's not the

32:44

complicated that a lot of my

32:45

counterparts make it to be so that they

32:48

can sell you some course. The

32:49

catalyst. What do you see that others do

32:52

not? The core truth. What do you believe

32:54

that others might not believe? And the

32:56

proof. How do you continually reinforce

32:59

that identity every single day? Not only

33:02

through what you're saying, but through

33:03

your actions. If you nail these, your

33:06

brand won't just have a story. Your

33:07

brand will have loyalty. All right. Now,

33:10

for something that a lot of people

33:11

struggle with, which is picking your

33:13

topic. Like, what are we going to talk

33:15

about here? And this is a question that

33:16

I get from many people. I've gotten this

33:18

question hundreds, if not thousands of

33:20

times over the last couple of years. And

33:23

there's a lot of different opinions

33:25

online about what or how you go about

33:28

picking your topics. I have kind of a

33:31

nuanced uh belief on this and view on it

33:34

and it's one that changes and evolves

33:37

over time. I encourage you to start

33:40

narrow. I personally believe that early

33:44

trust is built off of being great at one

33:47

specific thing and talking about that

33:50

same specific thing. We all have that

33:53

friend who is the best at everything.

33:56

And we know that they're not good at any

33:58

of it. By them talking all about how

34:00

great they are at all these different

34:02

subjects and all these different skills.

34:04

We pretty much assume that they're not

34:06

good at any of them. Contrary to that is

34:08

the friend who only talks about

34:11

woodworking and how they love carving

34:14

this beautiful chair or putting together

34:16

this amazing desk for their parents or

34:19

whatever. The person who is obsessed

34:20

around one thing and speaks about that

34:23

at nauseium is the individual who we

34:27

believe has credibility and is actually

34:29

good at what they're talking about. They

34:31

have expertise. A great example of this

34:33

is that when Gary started making content

34:36

online forever ago, I mean, he was super

34:40

early. I think 2006, 2007 on

34:42

YouTube, he was the wine guy. He made

34:45

content around wine. That's what he knew

34:48

super well. Now, at the time, he also

34:51

understood business and marketing, but

34:52

he didn't talk about that. He built his

34:54

base and credibility off of a subject

34:56

matter that he was worldclass at. Over

34:59

time, he began to expand that, right? He

35:02

began to speak to the different business

35:05

practices and marketing techniques that

35:08

he used to build his dad's wine and

35:11

liquor store. But in the beginning, all

35:13

of his content for the first several

35:15

years on YouTube was wine library TV

35:18

where he was tasting and giving reviews

35:20

on various wines. And then what you

35:23

started to see is he would start to pop

35:25

up at South by Southwest and start

35:26

talking more about marketing. And then

35:29

one day all of a sudden this amazing

35:32

speech gets dropped on YouTube

35:34

accompanied with a book called Crush It

35:36

where he informed everyone of his

35:39

beliefs on marketing and utilizing this

35:43

new crazy thing called social media. And

35:46

so what you see there is Gary started

35:48

very narrow and as his experience and

35:52

knowledge expanded, so did the subject

35:54

matter that he covered in his content.

35:57

Again, if you try to talk about

35:59

everything in the beginning, you will

36:01

dilute the power of what you're speaking

36:03

to. So what you're going to notice is

36:06

I'm not going to sit here talking about

36:08

business tactics. I'm not going to talk

36:11

about sales techniques. You're not going

36:13

to hear me referencing customer success

36:16

techniques and strategies cuz that's not

36:19

my wheelhouse. That's not my expertise.

36:21

My expertise is on scaling brands and

36:23

using organic content strategy to

36:25

accomplish that. And so that's what

36:27

you're going to hear me talk about. But

36:29

what may happen is over the next couple

36:31

of years as I gain more experience in

36:33

other areas, you might watch my brand

36:36

and my subject matter and topics evolve.

36:40

Now, the natural question that I imagine

36:43

is coming up for you right now is, well,

36:46

how do I know when it is the right time

36:47

to expand? I feel like maybe right now

36:49

I'm at that point. Or on the flip side,

36:52

I'm so far from ever expanding. Like, I

36:54

want to only talk about this subject

36:56

matter for the rest of my life. One, you

36:58

should actually know what you're talking

37:00

about before you talk about it. So, if

37:02

you haven't actually gotten to a point

37:04

of excellence and world class, then I

37:08

don't know that I would talk about this

37:09

new subject matter. I don't I don't

37:10

think I would bring it into the table

37:12

because what value are you going to be

37:14

providing the audience by sharing

37:17

something that you don't really know

37:18

much about? Now, another thing that you

37:20

can look at is once you're known for a

37:23

specific topic and you get consistent

37:26

engagement and positive feedback from

37:28

the audience on that, then you can

37:31

consider to start to expand. I would

37:33

encourage you to take on adjacent

37:35

topics, not something that is completely

37:38

different. For example, I'm not going to

37:41

be talking about brand strategy and

37:43

organic content strategy and then next

37:45

week start talking about breath work.

37:47

that would be completely offthe-wall and

37:49

make no sense, right? So, there would be

37:51

too much of a jump for my audience to

37:54

trust me on this new subject matter

37:56

because there's nothing about what I've

37:57

been talking about right now that would

37:59

give me credibility for this new subject

38:02

matter. to use Gary as the same example

38:04

when he was talking about wine and

38:07

building the brand and the company

38:09

online. By him doing that and gaining

38:12

success with the company, it gave him

38:14

credibility to speak into marketing and

38:18

to share those strategies because he had

38:20

demonstrated them in actual use. He put

38:24

those strategies that he shared with us

38:26

to practice to build his business and

38:28

that gave him credibility to jump into

38:31

the next section or the next topic in

38:34

his career. Another one is look at your

38:35

audience and what they're asking for. If

38:37

you start noticing that they're asking

38:39

for additional information on something

38:41

that you don't really cover that much,

38:42

but you've maybe hinted at or or has

38:44

been displayed in a minor way in your

38:47

content, well, maybe that is time for

38:50

you to start speaking to that subject

38:51

matter. For example, if all of you

38:54

watching this started asking me a ton

38:56

about my Harley-Davidson and all the

38:58

little uh intricacies of all the

39:00

upgrades that I've made and the

39:01

performance and the handling and how I

39:04

go on long road trips, I would gladly

39:05

answer those questions. Now, when

39:08

thinking about expanding, uh I would

39:10

encourage you to do it strategically.

39:12

So, let's walk through what that looks

39:13

like. A great example of a company that

39:16

went about expanding their product line

39:19

is Amazon. Amazon started by selling

39:21

books, right? And now they sell

39:24

obviously a lot more than just books. I

39:26

mean, if we look at what I'm wearing

39:28

right now, about 3/4 of everything I

39:30

have on was purchased off of Amazon. But

39:33

ultimately, even though Amazon has

39:35

expanded to all these various different

39:37

products, they haven't lost their core

39:39

identity with books. And I would argue

39:41

them acquiring Audible was actually a

39:43

big step in re-engaging that audience.

39:47

They now have what I probably believe is

39:50

the biggest audiobook platform out

39:52

there. And so they returned or

39:55

reinforced rather than returned, they

39:57

reinforced their roots by doing that. So

40:01

in expanding, never lose sight of your

40:05

core identity and where you started. For

40:08

another example, to keep running with

40:10

the Gary Vee example, that man continues

40:12

to this day to bring back Wine Library

40:15

TV on occasions. He still brings wine

40:18

into his content here and there. He pays

40:21

ode and homage to the OG Gary Vee.

40:25

Another great example, similar to Amazon

40:27

and Gary of returning to your roots is

40:30

Crayola. As of February 2025, when we're

40:32

filming this, Crayola announced that

40:34

they're bringing back eight discontinued

40:36

colors that they had uh taken off the

40:38

market. Some of them, you know, as most

40:40

recently as 2017, some of them go back

40:42

to like 1990. one, bringing it back is a

40:45

nostalgic play and that's obviously

40:46

going to resonate with a lot of the uh

40:48

audience, a lot of the parents honestly

40:50

that have kids now like we grew up I

40:53

grew up with Crayola and my generation

40:56

is of the age we're like we have kids

40:57

now and so uh there's definitely a good

40:59

play there. But I think what this shows

41:01

is a company and a brand can evolve and

41:06

and add new product lines, add new

41:08

things in and change over time. But I do

41:11

believe there is a lot of power in

41:13

always holding to your core, to your

41:16

root. And that doesn't necessarily mean

41:17

that every year, every day, every month,

41:20

you have to do that. But it is good and

41:22

I think it means a lot to the day one

41:25

and OG members or audience or customers

41:29

of yours for you to return to that. Uh,

41:31

another example actually that that I'll

41:33

generalize because a lot of creators do

41:34

this is if you're a creator or a

41:36

musician, the content or music you were

41:39

making day one in the early days, that's

41:41

what a lot of your day one fans fell in

41:44

love with. And like brands, a lot of

41:47

musicians and artists and creators

41:50

evolve and they evolve what they create,

41:52

right? We all know, I mean, I'm really

41:54

big into hardcore music as an example.

41:57

And I can't tell you actually a prime

41:59

example of this, just thought of right

42:01

now, is Knock Loose. In the hardcore

42:03

space, Knocked Loose started as a

42:05

hardcore band. They had that like grungy

42:08

local basement sound, but Knock Loose

42:10

has blown the up. And as they

42:12

continue to get bigger, they have haters

42:14

that call them sellouts and all this

42:16

stuff. Well, the cool thing that Knock

42:19

Loose does at their shows is they still

42:21

play their original tracks. They still

42:24

play the gospel and that

42:27

slaps every single time. And it allows

42:29

for us Day One fans to have that

42:32

nostalgic feeling and make sure that we

42:35

still feel attached to not only what the

42:37

band has evolved into, but where the

42:39

band came from. So, a takeaway here for

42:42

those of you that have a more

42:43

established brand is maybe consider

42:46

bringing back like a nostalgic play,

42:48

like return to your roots a little bit.

42:50

If you had a different content format

42:52

style that you used to do, or like the

42:55

musician example, if you had an earlier,

42:57

more raw sound, maybe consider releasing

43:00

a project that taps into that nostalgic

43:02

play. Nostalgia is a very big winner

43:06

amongst humans. A pro tip on this is to

43:10

expand in layers, not leaps. So don't do

43:13

anything massive. Every jump, every new

43:17

topic you add should really feel natural

43:20

to your audience. Again, like the

43:22

example I gave earlier, it shouldn't

43:24

feel like talking about brand and

43:26

organic content strategy and then going

43:28

to breath work. Like it should be if I

43:30

wanted to get to breath work, I should

43:32

probably inch my way over to that point

43:35

rather than having just a complete black

43:36

and white change. Now, based on the

43:38

niche you're in and your desired

43:39

associations, that's what's going to

43:42

inform the topics that you want to

43:44

explore and expand on. Now, a key

43:47

reminder in this, and this is where a

43:49

lot of you are potentially going to get

43:51

hung up, so this is why I'm saying this,

43:53

don't think of it as a rule when you're

43:56

picking these topics. These are

43:57

guidelines that you can follow that make

43:59

it easier for you to create content, but

44:02

don't make it an absolute rule. As much

44:04

as I was saying that it'd be weird for

44:06

me to make content around brand organic

44:09

content strategy and then immediately

44:10

jump to breath work. Sure, that might be

44:12

really abrupt and kind of like gnarly

44:14

for the audience, but ultimately our

44:17

goal is to do this for a long time. And

44:19

so if that is something that you do want

44:21

to talk about, it. Just jump and do

44:22

it. By no means are these rules to

44:25

follow. These are guidelines to help you

44:27

and make this easier for you. Not

44:30

something that you have to overthink

44:31

24/7. In fact, I'm going to double down

44:33

on this real quick because I think a lot

44:34

of people sit down with a brand

44:36

strategist or whatever and they build

44:38

out these content pillars and then they

44:41

always say, "Well, if it doesn't fall

44:43

within the content pillar, we can't talk

44:44

about it." But here's the thing. When

44:46

Trevor and I sat down and identified

44:49

what we were going to be talking about

44:50

in our content, we didn't necessarily

44:53

say Harley-Davidson's, but as you can

44:56

probably tell if you're at this point in

44:57

the video, I reference Harley a lot. and

45:00

I want to make content around my

45:02

Harleyies as well. Is it one of my

45:03

content pillars? No, it's not. But if I

45:07

want to make a video about my Harley,

45:08

I'm going to do it because I

45:10

enjoy it. And I think that what it does

45:12

do is it rounds out my brand and makes

45:14

me more interesting. I'm not just

45:16

somebody who cares about brand and

45:18

organic content. I also love my

45:21

motorcycle and love to travel on it. I

45:23

love to customize it. This is what will

45:26

make you interesting and will cause you

45:28

to actually stand out from your

45:31

competitors. So the key here is don't be

45:33

rigid. Stay flexible. So if you're

45:36

trying to figure this out, here's three

45:38

questions that might help you. First

45:39

question is, what am I genuinely

45:41

passionate about discussing? If you

45:43

can't tell by now, I'm very passionate

45:45

about brand strategy. It probably comes

45:47

through in my tone here. That's what you

45:49

want to talk about. You want to talk

45:51

about something that you're going to

45:53

want to talk about because when you do

45:55

that passion comes through and people

45:57

will connect with it and they will

45:59

probably feel like you are more

46:01

convicted about what you are saying and

46:03

believe you more and actually take

46:05

action on what you are saying rather

46:07

than just sitting and listening. Number

46:10

two is what will resonate with my

46:12

audience most right now. So for me, for

46:16

example, when I talk about brand

46:18

strategy, something that is definitely a

46:21

need in the audience that I have is

46:23

organic content strategy. I'm going to

46:25

talk far less over the next year about

46:28

my paid media strategy because that's

46:30

something that a lot of people that I

46:32

have spoken to over the last 5 years

46:35

need less help on. They have more

46:36

experience in that. On the contrary, a

46:39

lot of people look at organic content on

46:42

social as like this like blackbox

46:44

magical mysterious thing that they do

46:46

not understand. And so that's why a lot

46:48

of the content that we're going to put

46:49

out this year is going to be around

46:51

organic content strategy. And I would

46:53

argue number three is the most important

46:54

of the three questions. What will cause

46:56

my audience to change their actions the

46:58

most? Like I've said multiple times in

47:00

this video, what you don't want when

47:01

you're making educational content is for

47:03

people to just be passively consuming

47:06

and do nothing about it. You want them

47:08

to take action. So, what can I speak to

47:11

and how can I speak about it in a way

47:14

that makes it easy for my audience to

47:17

then listen and take action on what I am

47:20

saying. So to make sure that we're not

47:22

getting confused here, I just want to

47:24

real quick emphasize. I'm not saying

47:26

talk about one thing. I don't want you

47:29

to talk about just one thing. I want you

47:31

to emphasize your one thing. So if we're

47:34

looking at a pie, 80% of the pie should

47:37

be that one main thing you want to be

47:39

known for. But use the other 20% to

47:42

round yourself out, to round your

47:44

company out, and be more human.

47:47

This is how other people will relate to

47:50

you. Here's an example. Look at your

47:51

significant other or a friend of yours,

47:53

right? If you talk about one thing to

47:56

them all the time, 24/7, guess what?

48:00

They're probably going to hate

48:01

you. They're going to get bored of you.

48:04

And even more so, you are probably going

48:06

to hate you and get bored of yourself.

48:08

Sure, it's totally okay to spend 80% of

48:11

your time talking about that one thing.

48:12

80% of what I'm talking about here is

48:14

brand strategy and I'm going to continue

48:16

doing that. But the other 20 I am going

48:18

to utilize to round me out and make me

48:21

more human. I like to call this interest

48:24

stacking. Here's a really good example.

48:26

All of us probably at one point in our

48:28

life started at a normal job and day one

48:32

the only thing we have in common with

48:34

our co-workers is that we work for this

48:36

organization. But as you start to get

48:38

more comfortable, you probably tend to

48:40

reveal a few more things about yourself,

48:43

interests you have. Let's say, for

48:44

example, uh you reveal the fact that

48:46

you're a huge Kendrick Lamar fan, and

48:48

this is during the great Kendrick and

48:50

Drake beef. And somebody else on your

48:53

team, Sarah, also is like, I love

48:55

Kendrick as well. Suddenly, you go from

48:59

having one thing in common, we both work

49:01

for this company, to having two things

49:03

in common. We work for this company and

49:05

we both love Kendrick Lamar. What ends

49:07

up happening there is you become work

49:09

homies, work friends, right? It becomes

49:12

more than just co-workers. And as you

49:15

start to learn more things that you have

49:17

in common with each other, you may go

49:19

from being work friends to friends. Even

49:21

to the point where once you move on from

49:23

the organization, you're still friends.

49:26

I think of the same exact principle in

49:29

building your brand online. The more

49:31

interests and things that you find

49:34

interesting that you talk about in your

49:36

content, you give your audience more at

49:38

bats to connect with you because they're

49:40

like, I also like that thing. And how

49:42

unique that there's this intersection of

49:45

somebody who loves human optimization

49:48

and making their body healthier, but

49:50

they're also a complete computer science

49:52

nerd. That is a very interesting

49:54

intersection. So, what you want to do is

49:56

actually give your audience more at

49:58

bats. So again, spend 80% of your time

50:01

talking about the core subject, the core

50:04

topic. Ideally, this is something that

50:06

is in line with your offers that you

50:07

have and drives revenue and

50:09

profitability for yourself or your

50:11

company. And then the other 20% talk

50:14

about your interests. Give your audience

50:15

at bats to connect with you. An example

50:17

that I love to use for this, whether we

50:19

love him or we hate him, is Joe Rogan.

50:21

Joe Rogan does an incredible job about

50:23

talking about all the different

50:25

interests that he has, right? conspiracy

50:27

theories, politics, human

50:30

optimization, hunting, UFC, comedy. I

50:33

mean, the list goes on and on. And so,

50:35

if you're interested in one of those

50:36

things, you might be interested in his

50:38

podcast. If you're interested in two,

50:40

three, or four of those things, you're

50:42

probably a super fan. The only

50:44

way people would know that they are a

50:46

super fan or become a super fan though

50:48

is if he talks about those things. If he

50:51

just stuck to MMA and comedy, there'd be

50:54

far less at bats for his audience to

50:57

become

51:01

obsessed. All right, we are on to

51:03

content. So, we've covered branding and

51:05

what brand is and we've gone pretty

51:08

in-depth on that. And that is laying the

51:10

groundwork and giving us the direction

51:13

that we are now going to take with our

51:15

content. I like to think of it as we've

51:17

established our brand and now content is

51:19

what we will do to amplify the brand.

51:22

And one thing I want to give you as kind

51:24

of a qualifier or a statement upfront

51:27

that will influence everything that we

51:29

talk about from here on out is that I

51:32

like to build a content strategy in the

51:36

same way that a great personal trainer

51:39

designs a great training program for

51:41

their clients. A great example is right

51:43

now I am gonna start getting back into

51:46

lifting and if I were to go into the gym

51:49

and immediately start working on Ronnie

51:51

Coleman's training routine, well, I'd be

51:54

I would probably injure myself

51:56

and I definitely wouldn't stick with it.

51:58

And so, every good personal trainer

52:00

knows that the best fitness routine or

52:02

best training routine is one that you

52:04

are going to stick with for a long time.

52:06

We get the most results the longer we

52:09

stick with it. Content is the exact same

52:12

way. A lot of people make the mistake of

52:14

trying to do what Mr. Beast does or what

52:16

Gary Vee does or what all these

52:18

different creators online that you see

52:20

are doing. Some of them go really high

52:22

volume. Some of them go extremely high

52:23

production. That is a great goal to

52:26

aspire to, but do not start off that

52:29

way. You will burn out quick and

52:32

you won't stick with it. And so

52:33

everything that we design and we talk

52:35

about, I want you to take and determine

52:38

what do I feel like I can actually

52:41

consistently stick with so that I get

52:44

the results I'm looking for. So with

52:46

that in mind, we are now going to start

52:49

by choosing our content medium. This is

52:52

the type of content, the style of

52:55

content that you are going to emphasize.

52:56

Now, I want to be very clear before we

52:58

go into it. I think you should do all of

53:00

these, but what I want you to determine

53:02

is what is going to be your 80%. What

53:05

are you going to lean into the most?

53:07

Picking the right content medium is

53:09

about playing to your strengths while

53:11

ensuring long-term sustainability. You

53:14

want to be able to do this for a very

53:15

long time, like I said at the top. So,

53:16

we have four different mediums that

53:18

we're going to be discussing here. We

53:20

have written content, we have video

53:21

content, audio content, and

53:24

graphic/design content. And so, we're

53:26

going to start with written content

53:27

first. Now, written typically is best

53:29

for LinkedIn, uh, Twitter X, whatever

53:32

you want to call it, Facebook, email,

53:35

newsletters, ebooks, articles, those

53:37

kinds of things. Honestly, the the best

53:39

version of this is somebody who feels

53:41

they are capable of taking high value

53:43

information, maybe even really dense

53:46

information and concepts and being able

53:48

to articulate it in a written format

53:50

that is concise and high value per

53:53

sentence. When I'm thinking about video

53:55

content, I'm thinking about value per

53:56

second. I would like to think about

53:58

value per word or value per sentence.

54:01

When it's coming to written, it's

54:03

February 2025 when we're filming this.

54:04

Right now, LinkedIn is, in my opinion,

54:07

the hottest platform to be on. Whether

54:09

you are an entrepreneur, a creator, a

54:12

musician, an artist, whatever you are,

54:14

LinkedIn is actually the platform that

54:16

is super underrated because everyone

54:18

assumes it's just business people

54:20

talking about their careers, but it's

54:22

not. We're at the point now where the

54:24

homie is posting a photo of him

54:27

and his family in the minivan going on a

54:29

road trip and then the next post is some

54:31

career update. And so we're actually at

54:33

the point now where LinkedIn is no

54:34

longer just a resume and job status

54:37

update psych. It is a social media

54:41

platform, however you want to call it,

54:43

interest media, social media, whatever.

54:45

it is now getting to the point where it

54:46

has matured and so people are behaving

54:48

the way that they used to on Facebook

54:50

back in like 2013 2014 and the beauty of

54:52

it is right now if you comment on

54:56

somebody's post all of their connections

54:58

see it and so it's actually got true

55:00

virality and I'm emphasizing this right

55:02

now we'll touch on LinkedIn a lot more

55:04

later but written content is

55:06

murdering on LinkedIn if you understand

55:09

how to package and format your written

55:12

post if you get the hook Right? It's

55:15

incredible right now. And so, uh, if you

55:17

feel you have the skill set to do

55:20

written, well, this is a great moment in

55:23

time for you. Now, if you're wondering

55:25

if this is going to be a good medium for

55:27

you to pick, well, here's a couple of

55:29

questions that you can ask yourself. Do

55:30

you enjoy sitting down and writing or

55:32

even journaling? Are you already doing

55:34

this? Right? Like, do you have a habit

55:36

of every morning or every night before

55:37

you go to bed, you're already

55:38

journaling? Well, you might already have

55:41

maybe 70% of the skills required and

55:44

also you might have 100% of the interest

55:46

in the medium required to do it. A

55:48

really crucial question that I think a

55:50

lot of people don't ask themselves and

55:52

never evaluate the written content off

55:54

of is, can you write this down, this

55:57

concept, and have it make sense without

55:59

saying it out loud? Some of the worst

56:01

LinkedIn posts, you can tell they're bad

56:03

because the person who wrote it has to

56:05

explain what they're saying in the

56:08

written. If you have to explain it or

56:09

add commentary, it is not a good post

56:12

and you should throw it in the trash.

56:14

And then once you have a post written or

56:16

an article written, do you like the idea

56:19

of refining it, editing it, reviewing

56:22

it? I'll tell you, when I work on a

56:25

LinkedIn post, I probably do about 10

56:27

different versions minimum of it where I

56:30

reread it, write it. I mean, I just go

56:33

back and forth, back and forth on it.

56:34

And so I think something very similar to

56:37

what we'll talk about here in uh video

56:39

content as an editor, you have to be

56:41

comfortable watching the same moment

56:43

hundreds of times, right? Every editor

56:45

watching heard that big time. Well, it's

56:48

the same with editing written content.

56:50

And so you need to be comfortable with

56:51

doing that. That's how you can evaluate

56:53

whether or not written content is going

56:54

to be a good medium for you to

56:56

emphasize. The next one is video

56:57

content. Video content is the highest

57:00

leverage medium that you can engage in.

57:03

With video, you get the main video that

57:05

you filmed. Let's say it's a long form

57:06

like this. Well, we can also pull short

57:09

form clips from it. We can also extract

57:11

the audio and make that a podcast. We

57:14

can also take the transcript and then

57:16

take little quotes out of the transcript

57:18

that were punchy or piffy and put those

57:21

out on threads, Twitter, uh, Facebook

57:24

status update as an image with the copy

57:26

on it. There's a lot you can do. You can

57:28

then take the transcript and use it as

57:30

your starting point to write LinkedIn

57:32

posts if you want or articles or a

57:34

newsletter. So video is the highest

57:36

leverage because you put the effort of

57:39

filming this and then you're able to

57:40

redistribute or repurpose that content

57:43

for so many different mediums for so

57:45

many different platforms. But like I

57:47

said at the top, if you right now

57:49

watching this shudder at the idea of

57:51

being on camera and it sounds like

57:53

awful, well, I would encourage

57:55

you don't do it yet. Again, we want to

57:58

be doing this for a very, very long

58:00

time. And so, we want to create a system

58:02

that we enjoy and we look forward to,

58:05

not something that we dread and get

58:06

anxiety when we see it on the calendar.

58:08

Now, video content includes everything,

58:10

right? This is YouTube long form,

58:11

YouTube short form, Tik Tok, Instagram,

58:13

LinkedIn video tab, Facebook reels,

58:16

Spotify video. Now, like everything is

58:18

pretty much pushing video these days.

58:21

And so again, not only are you able to

58:23

repurpose it in so many ways, but you're

58:24

able to feed so many different platforms

58:27

the type of content or the medium of

58:30

content that they are asking for. Now,

58:32

if you're wondering who is video best

58:35

for, well, honestly, it's really if you

58:38

feel comfortable being in front of the

58:40

camera, if you feel like you have the

58:42

ability to articulate fairly clearly, I

58:45

mean, look at me. I'm not necessarily

58:47

the best on camera or anything, but like

58:48

that's what we're doing here. So, if you

58:50

feel that or you're not feeling like

58:53

you're an absolute natural at it, but

58:55

you're willing to improve and work on it

58:59

in real time in public like myself, then

59:02

okay, cool. I would highly encourage you

59:04

to take on video, you get so much more

59:06

out of it. One thing that I left out is

59:08

you can also extract stills from the

59:10

video. So, you can also use those for

59:12

social posts. I mean, the amount that

59:13

you can get for the amount you put in is

59:15

limitless. Couple of questions

59:17

that you can ask yourself when

59:18

evaluating if video is your medium are,

59:23

are you comfortable on camera or are you

59:25

at least willing to try and improve in

59:30

public over time? Can you handle uh

59:33

negative feedback from people calling

59:34

out your lack of abilities to articulate

59:37

or uh be entertaining on camera? If so,

59:40

do it. Do you get excited about

59:42

visuals and grabbing attention? Okay,

59:45

video is probably a good one for you. If

59:47

not, maybe it's down the road. And the

59:49

last question is, can you speak

59:51

concisely without rambling? Or again, if

59:54

you can't, but you're comfortable

59:56

learning on the job, learning in public,

59:58

then okay, cool. Let's tackle it. Let's

1:00:00

do it. The reason why we have this last

1:00:01

question is because one of the things

1:00:03

that I've noticed in a lot of talent

1:00:04

that I filmed with over the years is

1:00:06

that when you are extremely

1:00:07

knowledgeable on a subject matter,

1:00:10

something happens when you start talking

1:00:12

about it. I call it bunny brain. I get

1:00:14

it all the time. I start saying

1:00:15

something and then my brain fires off

1:00:17

this next idea and it's like this little

1:00:19

rabbit trail that I end up following and

1:00:21

it can cause you to ramble and it can

1:00:23

cause you to veer off topic. And if you

1:00:25

find yourself doing that, that is not

1:00:28

necessarily a reason to not do video

1:00:31

content. That just means you need to

1:00:32

have a better editor that can help make

1:00:35

sure that the content stays focused.

1:00:37

Now, the next one is audio content. And

1:00:40

this is mainly podcast. That's really

1:00:41

what I would want you to think about

1:00:43

when you're thinking about audio

1:00:44

content. And really, it's exactly the

1:00:46

same as video except for you remove the

1:00:48

discomfort of staring into this lens,

1:00:51

this eternal black abyss that you just

1:00:53

have no idea what the reaction is on the

1:00:56

other side. Because the majority of you

1:00:57

don't have an amazing cameraman behind

1:00:59

it like Trevor who is nodding and giving

1:01:00

me affirmation that what I'm saying is

1:01:03

good. So, it is freaky to sit in

1:01:05

front of a camera, stare into the lens,

1:01:07

and talk. It's a lot easier to just have

1:01:10

a mic in front of you and just riff. And

1:01:13

so I would recommend if the idea of

1:01:16

video is exciting and terrifying at the

1:01:19

same time, maybe consider for a period

1:01:22

of time starting with a podcast. And

1:01:25

what I have found is when people do

1:01:27

this, they very quickly realize, oh, I

1:01:30

might be able to do this video thing.

1:01:32

It's not that bad making content after

1:01:34

all. And so it allows you to see

1:01:37

yourself in a very similar scenario and

1:01:40

recognize that it's not that terrifying,

1:01:42

not that freaky, it's actually very high

1:01:44

reward. Maybe I could do the same thing

1:01:46

with video. So if video was something

1:01:49

that seemed interesting to you, but you

1:01:51

get a lot of anxiety and fear that pops

1:01:53

up in your mind and your body when you

1:01:56

think about it, then I would strongly

1:01:58

consider starting with a podcast. Three

1:02:00

questions to ask yourself here are, do

1:02:02

you feel confident speaking without a

1:02:06

visual element? If you decide to do a

1:02:07

podcast, that's amazing. What we are

1:02:09

missing is a sensory input. There is no

1:02:13

visuals for the viewer to be able to

1:02:16

help understand what you are saying. And

1:02:18

so, if you're explaining a really

1:02:21

in-depth complicated concept, you have

1:02:24

no visual aid to help illustrate what

1:02:27

you are saying. And so you have to use

1:02:29

your words to be able to articulate and

1:02:31

paint the picture for your audience.

1:02:34

This is more difficult. And so it's not

1:02:36

like podcasting is just easier than

1:02:38

video. I think a lot of people

1:02:40

actually underestimate what goes into a

1:02:44

top podcast. They think, well, I mean,

1:02:46

it doesn't require any visuals, so that

1:02:48

makes it a lot easier. But that means

1:02:50

that your descriptions and the way you

1:02:53

articulate your information has to be

1:02:55

even more clear. The next question is,

1:02:58

do you enjoy deeper conversations or

1:03:01

deeper dives into one specific subject?

1:03:04

I find that I prefer longer form

1:03:07

podcasts personally and I think that if

1:03:10

you look at the top charts, yes, there

1:03:12

are short episodes and and shows that

1:03:14

don't do like hour plus long podcasts,

1:03:16

but I would say the majority of the top

1:03:18

100 are a little bit longer than 20

1:03:22

minutes, for example. And so if you feel

1:03:25

comfortable being able to go deep on a

1:03:28

subject matter for that long, I think

1:03:30

this would be a great medium for you.

1:03:32

And the last one is, does your voice

1:03:33

have enough energy and clarity to keep

1:03:36

people engaged? A lot of people would

1:03:39

hear this and think, well, I don't have

1:03:41

that interesting sounding of a voice.

1:03:43

Well, I disagree. I think one

1:03:47

the cadence in which you speak. If

1:03:49

you've noticed sometimes when I talk I

1:03:50

talk really fast then I slow down. I

1:03:53

talk louder and then I bring it down.

1:03:56

I'm always trying to emphasize certain

1:03:59

things. And so when you go on a fast

1:04:01

pattern and then slow down, for example,

1:04:04

it allows the audience to understand

1:04:07

you're trying to emphasize something.

1:04:09

It's a pattern interrupt. So there's a

1:04:11

lot of different techniques. There's a

1:04:12

million creators on YouTube here that

1:04:15

can show you how to be more engaging

1:04:18

with how you communicate. But I actually

1:04:20

want to take a slightly different

1:04:21

approach to this. Throughout this

1:04:23

course, I've mentioned kind of my life

1:04:24

philosophy, which is taking whatever is

1:04:26

given to you and using it as your

1:04:28

advantage, even if it was viewed as a

1:04:30

disadvantage by most people. If you have

1:04:32

a monotone voice, I would actually lean

1:04:35

into that and I would make that your

1:04:37

bit. Again, what a lot of people would

1:04:40

view as a disadvantage or a weakness, I

1:04:43

think you can make that your thing.

1:04:45

Honestly, some of my favorite podcasts

1:04:47

and comedians are very monotone and

1:04:51

sarcastic, and I think that that makes

1:04:53

for a very interesting show. So, again,

1:04:56

whatever you see right now as the reason

1:04:58

why you shouldn't do it, I would argue

1:05:01

is probably the very reason why you

1:05:03

should do it. Now, the last medium is

1:05:06

visual/graphic content. What this looks

1:05:09

like is infographics, carousels, PDFs

1:05:12

that you upload to LinkedIn as a

1:05:15

carousel. That's kind of the hack there.

1:05:16

Or anything that is

1:05:18

designheavy. Now, a lot of people are

1:05:20

going to hear this and think, "Well,

1:05:21

that's just for designers. I'm not I'm

1:05:22

not a designer." Well, one, there's a

1:05:24

million tools out there that can

1:05:26

take a complete novice with design and

1:05:29

make them look like, you know, fairly

1:05:30

intermediate. There's Canva, there's

1:05:33

Figma, there's all these Adobe programs

1:05:35

with AI and how it's evolving right now.

1:05:37

I mean, we're almost at the point where

1:05:38

like, you know, my grandma could

1:05:40

design a really dope carousel for

1:05:42

Instagram. Like, it's not that

1:05:43

difficult. Okay, the real thing here is

1:05:45

it's not necessarily you designing it.

1:05:48

You might have a designer that you work

1:05:49

with. It doesn't always have to be you

1:05:52

implementing it, but I think a lot of

1:05:54

people that are going to resonate with

1:05:55

this are individuals who don't like

1:05:58

video content, but want to be able to

1:06:01

explain and articulate their thoughts

1:06:04

utilizing not just words, but visuals.

1:06:07

Something that's working really well

1:06:08

right now in February 2025 on Instagram

1:06:11

is carousels. Carousels are

1:06:13

murdering. And I think the simpler the

1:06:17

better. And this is where you compare a

1:06:19

visual and written word. So instead of

1:06:22

just having to explain things through a

1:06:25

blog post or a LinkedIn post, you have

1:06:27

two different ways to be able to explain

1:06:30

the concept. Three questions to ask

1:06:32

yourself uh if you're considering visual

1:06:34

or graphic content, are you good at or

1:06:36

curious about tools like I mentioned,

1:06:39

Canva, Adobe, Figma, any of those?

1:06:42

Number two, can you simplify complex

1:06:46

concepts into a visual? Tiny little side

1:06:49

note, an amazing example of this is an

1:06:51

Instagram account. I believe it's called

1:06:52

Visualize Value. This individual,

1:06:54

whoever they are, I'm I don't know them,

1:06:56

does an amazing job of taking pretty

1:06:59

highlevel complex concepts and making

1:07:02

them into unbelievably simple and very

1:07:05

easy to understand visuals. And I think

1:07:09

the audience really appreciates the way

1:07:12

that they are able to do that. And

1:07:14

third, uh, do you enjoy the process of

1:07:16

making content look great, looking

1:07:18

polished? This is not necessary. Uh, you

1:07:20

could literally draw on a

1:07:22

piece of paper, take a photo of it, and

1:07:24

upload it. That's actually, as a side

1:07:26

note, something that is currently

1:07:27

working really well online is drawing

1:07:29

something or creating something physical

1:07:31

in the real world, taking a photo of it,

1:07:32

and uploading it. You can do whatever

1:07:34

you want here. But if you do have a a

1:07:37

love for refining visuals, this might be

1:07:41

an interesting medium for you to

1:07:42

explore. All right, so we've chosen our

1:07:44

medium or mediums that we feel

1:07:46

comfortable creating in. Now, some of

1:07:48

you might choose all four of those.

1:07:51

That's what I'm doing. I highly

1:07:52

encourage it. If you feel like you have

1:07:54

either the team around you, bandwidth,

1:07:56

or skill set, or ideally all three, then

1:07:59

yeah, by all means, use all four of

1:08:01

them. I just wanted to give you the

1:08:03

opportunity to choose one of them if the

1:08:06

idea of doing all four feels

1:08:08

overwhelming in the beginning because

1:08:09

again, we're not trying to jump to

1:08:11

Ronnie Coleman's training routine. We're

1:08:14

not trying to jump to Mr. Beast's

1:08:16

content output, okay? We're trying to do

1:08:19

one thing at a time to start to gain

1:08:22

momentum and stick with this for a long

1:08:25

time. So, now that we've picked our

1:08:26

medium or mediums, it's time to choose

1:08:29

our platforms. What I recommend people

1:08:32

do is prioritize two to three platforms.

1:08:36

I don't want you trying to crush across

1:08:40

all the different platforms. I know a

1:08:41

lot of people out there talk about post

1:08:43

everywhere, post all the time, and

1:08:44

that's a strategy and that's fine. I

1:08:46

would actually discourage you from doing

1:08:48

that. I think that you gain a lot more

1:08:50

by picking, let's say, two platforms

1:08:52

that you're going to learn heavily and

1:08:56

really emphasize original content for

1:08:59

making content specific for that

1:09:01

platform. More on that in a little bit.

1:09:02

The reason why I say two or three rather

1:09:04

than one is you want to avoid single

1:09:08

channel, single platform risk. Here's a

1:09:10

prime example that we just recently went

1:09:13

through. Again, we're filming this in

1:09:14

February 2025. Just a month ago, we had

1:09:17

this wonderful 12-h hour period where

1:09:19

Tik Tok completely disappeared in the

1:09:21

US. Nobody could download it. They

1:09:23

couldn't access it or anything. Guess

1:09:25

what happened? Complete terror. Everyone

1:09:29

was freaking the out, or I should

1:09:30

say everyone whose business or income

1:09:33

was tied solely to Tik Tok. And more

1:09:36

than likely, they were the individuals

1:09:39

who found a lot of success on Tik Tok

1:09:41

and then never chose to build on other

1:09:44

platforms to diversify their reach. And

1:09:47

by doing that, they were unbelievably

1:09:50

vulnerable. Now, I'm not saying that I

1:09:52

think that the US government is going to

1:09:53

start like banning all of these apps. I

1:09:55

do not think that. But what I do know is

1:09:58

that algorithms change. The way that

1:10:01

platforms behave and serve your content

1:10:03

to your audience is always changing. I

1:10:06

mean, if you were to look at how many

1:10:07

tweaks Instagram makes to their

1:10:09

algorithm and the way that content is

1:10:11

served, it's insane. And the real real

1:10:13

is that it's changing all the time for

1:10:15

different people. You and I are getting

1:10:17

different updates at different times.

1:10:18

You have features available to you that

1:10:20

I do not have and vice versa. And so, I

1:10:23

really encourage you, don't try and post

1:10:25

on all the different platforms. What I

1:10:27

would encourage you to do though is make

1:10:28

sure that you aren't tied to one single

1:10:31

platform. Now, what I do like to do is

1:10:33

uh I'm a Lord of the Rings nerd, so I

1:10:35

like this analogy. I like the Eye of

1:10:36

Sauron approach. I do like to of my two

1:10:39

or three that I'm prioritizing, put more

1:10:42

emphasis or more priority and resources

1:10:45

towards one at a time, but I try to

1:10:48

rotate between, let's say I pick three,

1:10:50

I try to rotate between those three. And

1:10:53

so I think of the other two on

1:10:55

maintenance mode while I'm focused on

1:10:57

YouTube, let's say. And then maybe I get

1:11:00

YouTube into maintenance mode and I move

1:11:01

over to LinkedIn. Now, how am I going

1:11:04

about this? Because we're at a very wild

1:11:07

time in my life where I am starting to

1:11:09

create content. As you can tell right

1:11:11

now, this is the first time in my life

1:11:13

where I have started to make consistent

1:11:15

content for myself, not for the talent

1:11:18

I'm working with. And so if you were to

1:11:20

look at my social media profiles right

1:11:22

now, you would probably see that

1:11:25

YouTube, Tik Tok, X, Threads, all these

1:11:28

different platforms, I have less than

1:11:30

like 4,000 followers on all of them.

1:11:32

Most of them less than 2,000. And then

1:11:34

on Instagram, I have like 68,000

1:11:36

followers. And so if you were assuming

1:11:38

that I would start on Instagram, that's

1:11:40

a very fair assumption. But actually,

1:11:41

what I've done is I've picked four

1:11:42

platforms that I'm going to prioritize.

1:11:44

Now, I am recommending that you do two

1:11:46

or three. I've been in this game for 16

1:11:48

years. So, there's a little bit of a

1:11:50

discrepancy there. I want to make sure

1:11:51

that that's very clear. Do more of what

1:11:53

I say in this, not as much of what I do.

1:11:55

So, what I actually did is when we first

1:11:57

started making content, I started with

1:11:59

LinkedIn. And the reason why is because

1:12:01

I believed that the majority of my

1:12:03

potential clients were on LinkedIn more

1:12:06

than Instagram. I also felt more

1:12:08

comfortable with LinkedIn and Instagram.

1:12:10

And so, those were the two platforms I

1:12:12

started with. So, we started on

1:12:13

LinkedIn, made a couple posts, and then

1:12:14

we did a post on Instagram. And I would

1:12:16

encourage you to do the same. Start

1:12:18

where you feel comfortable. A lot of

1:12:20

people really push the whole get out of

1:12:22

your comfort zone. No, that

1:12:24

Not in the beginning. In the beginning,

1:12:26

you want to build the habit of doing it.

1:12:28

Like I remember when I was really into

1:12:31

powerlifting, a lot of times when my

1:12:32

buddies wanted to get into lifting and

1:12:34

were trying to figure out how, I would

1:12:36

tell them, go to the gym for 10

1:12:38

minutes 5 days a week. If you just build

1:12:40

the habit of driving to the gym, you're

1:12:42

going to do it. That's usually

1:12:44

the issue. And it's the same here. Build

1:12:46

the habit of making and posting your

1:12:50

content. Make it as easy as possible.

1:12:52

Now, what we are going to do is we're

1:12:54

starting to expand. So, like we're doing

1:12:56

right now, we're filming long form

1:12:58

YouTube content. And so, we're going to

1:13:00

expand from just LinkedIn and Instagram

1:13:02

to YouTube and a podcast. And the reason

1:13:04

why I want to do that is I believe that

1:13:06

short form content is amazing to drive

1:13:09

awareness. And I think it's super

1:13:10

powerful and very effective to get brand

1:13:13

recognition. I view long form as the

1:13:16

place where conversion actually happens.

1:13:19

This is where we're able to truly

1:13:21

demonstrate our excellence and

1:13:22

expertise. Okay? So, for you, if you're

1:13:25

watching this and you're considering uh

1:13:26

whether or not to do long form or short

1:13:28

form content, well, short form has a

1:13:30

lower barrier to entry. So, it allows

1:13:32

you to start to get the repetitions in

1:13:34

and like I said earlier, build that

1:13:36

habit. But eventually, I would encourage

1:13:39

you to implement one or two long form

1:13:42

styles. either YouTube long form video

1:13:45

or long form podcasts, ideally both like

1:13:48

I'm doing. And the reason why is because

1:13:49

the more time somebody spends with you,

1:13:51

one, the more they're going to see your

1:13:53

expertise and your knowledge, but two,

1:13:56

there is this whole sunk cost fallacy.

1:13:58

And the way it works is the more time

1:14:00

somebody spends with you, the more

1:14:01

willing they are to actually act on an

1:14:04

offer that you present them. For the

1:14:06

very few of you watching this that have

1:14:07

bought a Harley-Davidson or probably any

1:14:10

other vehicle, I just only buy Harley's.

1:14:12

Their finance team has this very

1:14:14

interesting tactic that they do. They

1:14:16

have you fill out all this paperwork and

1:14:18

then they literally, I guarantee they

1:14:20

get the information. They run your

1:14:21

credit. They get all that within

1:14:23

seconds and they make you sit there for

1:14:25

like 10 or 15 minutes just talking to

1:14:28

the sales associate. Then what they do

1:14:30

is they take you on a tour through the

1:14:32

whole dealership. And all they're trying

1:14:34

to do is get you to invest more time in

1:14:38

the dealership so that you feel like,

1:14:39

well, I don't want to waste my time now.

1:14:41

I might as well do this transaction.

1:14:42

There's obviously a lot more that goes

1:14:44

into it. But I view long form content

1:14:45

the same. The more time your audience

1:14:47

spends with you, the more likely they

1:14:48

are to transact or convert on your

1:14:51

offer. So what is the point here? Start

1:14:54

where you're comfortable. If you're

1:14:56

already active on LinkedIn, Instagram,

1:14:58

YouTube, Tik Tok, wherever, then I would

1:15:01

just use that to start. Again, we want

1:15:03

to build the muscle and the habit of

1:15:06

making and posting content. And I

1:15:08

emphasize posting because a lot of you

1:15:10

make and then it sits on your

1:15:12

photo album on your phone and you never

1:15:14

actually put it out. The next question

1:15:16

that I would ask yourself when trying to

1:15:17

figure out which platform do I feel most

1:15:19

comfortable on is where do you naturally

1:15:21

spend the most of your time? Like if you

1:15:24

spend a lot of time scrolling on Tik

1:15:26

Tok, you probably understand what

1:15:28

content does well on Tik Tok. And if you

1:15:30

go from just doom scrolling to literally

1:15:33

consuming the same but with a more

1:15:35

strategic mindset and thinking, okay,

1:15:37

why did I like watching this video? And

1:15:38

you start taking notes on that, you're

1:15:40

going to keep track of best practices

1:15:42

that then you can start to implement

1:15:44

into your own content. The third

1:15:46

question is where is your audience? Back

1:15:48

to the exercise we did the brand journey

1:15:50

framework, right? We created our desired

1:15:53

outcome and then we reverse engineered

1:15:55

from there to today. Well, based on what

1:15:58

our desired outcome

1:16:00

is, who are we needing to reach in order

1:16:03

for that to occur? And where do we

1:16:05

believe it's a hypothesis that they

1:16:07

exist or they live the most? For me,

1:16:10

we're building a consulting firm where

1:16:12

we work with entrepreneurs, creators,

1:16:15

entertainers to help build their brands.

1:16:18

And a lot of them happen to be on

1:16:21

LinkedIn very actively. And so that's

1:16:24

why we started with LinkedIn as our

1:16:25

platform of choice because it was a

1:16:28

hypothesis of mine that we had more

1:16:31

qualified potential leads existing on

1:16:34

LinkedIn than let's say Instagram for

1:16:36

example. And then the finally I would

1:16:38

ask yourself are they on Tik Tok for

1:16:40

quick engaging content or are they on

1:16:42

YouTube for more long- for deep dives

1:16:45

into one specific subject matter or are

1:16:47

they around on LinkedIn trying

1:16:49

to be one of those thought leaders right

1:16:50

now. Basically, you want to make an

1:16:53

educated guess on where you think your

1:16:54

audience is and then test it, monitor

1:16:58

it. Are you getting actual leads? Are

1:17:00

people reaching out to you inquiring

1:17:02

about what you do? If not, there's two

1:17:04

potential options. One, your content

1:17:06

sucks and nobody gives a Two,

1:17:08

maybe you picked the wrong platform.

1:17:10

Now, once we've determined what medium

1:17:12

we like, what platform we're going to

1:17:14

want to work on, okay, cool. We now have

1:17:16

a good understanding and baseline of

1:17:18

what we are skilled at. Once you realize

1:17:20

that, double the down on it. If you

1:17:23

decided you're going to do video and

1:17:24

written, but man, your video content is

1:17:26

just not performing and your written is

1:17:28

going really well, I would encourage you

1:17:30

not to eliminate video, but reduce the

1:17:32

amount of effort you put towards your

1:17:34

video content and increase the amount

1:17:36

for the written content. There are

1:17:38

special moments in time and when you are

1:17:41

popping on a platform, that is not the

1:17:44

time in my opinion to go about trying to

1:17:46

level up other skill sets. That is the

1:17:49

time where you double down and you pour

1:17:51

gas on the thing that you are

1:17:53

actually good at and can consistently

1:17:55

put out that your audience deems as high

1:17:58

quality and high value. Now, on the flip

1:18:00

side, if you're confident on video and

1:18:02

you feel like you're able to articulate

1:18:03

your thoughts, you're entertaining,

1:18:05

engaging, well, then double down on

1:18:07

either short form or long form video.

1:18:09

Again, it's whatever you feel you are

1:18:10

best at, you should be leaning into that

1:18:13

heavily. And like I said earlier, if you

1:18:15

prefer audio, start a podcast.

1:18:17

you'll eventually, I think, get to a

1:18:19

point where you feel comfortable doing

1:18:20

video and then you're doing a higher

1:18:23

leverage activity. The next thing is

1:18:24

look at your results and don't listen to

1:18:27

your ego. I'm just going to be

1:18:29

unbelievably vulnerable and transparent

1:18:30

here. I have been seeing the footage

1:18:33

from this course and I actually feel

1:18:35

like I look fat as this. I feel

1:18:37

like I've gained weight. I would

1:18:39

encourage you to push past some of that

1:18:41

ego some of those

1:18:42

insecurities. I understand why they're

1:18:44

there. I get it. Trust me. But if you

1:18:47

are gaining traction and getting

1:18:49

engagement in your content and people

1:18:50

are resonating with it, who gives a

1:18:54

how you think you look? More than

1:18:57

likely, people aren't even thinking

1:18:58

about that. Like the real real is I'm

1:19:01

sure none of you even thought of that.

1:19:02

Maybe you did, but probably didn't until

1:19:04

I just said it. And so now I just, you

1:19:06

know, brought that to your attention. If

1:19:08

I allowed my ego to dictate what we did,

1:19:11

we would probably not release any of the

1:19:13

content we've made so far. And so what I

1:19:15

would encourage you to do is look and

1:19:17

track your metrics. Look at the

1:19:20

engagement. Look at the results you're

1:19:22

getting. And stop listening to that

1:19:24

little demon on your shoulder that keeps

1:19:26

telling you how weird your voice sounds,

1:19:30

how fat you look, how tired you look,

1:19:33

how weird you sound, what whatever it

1:19:36

is, whatever that inner up voice

1:19:38

is, that is not what is propelling you

1:19:41

towards your goals. Another thing that I

1:19:43

would really encourage you to focus on

1:19:44

is that a small correct audience that is

1:19:48

engaged is so much more powerful than

1:19:50

having a massive audience of people that

1:19:53

have no idea what the you're doing

1:19:55

and could give a about it. For

1:19:57

example, if you were to look at my

1:19:58

Instagram page, I have 68,000 followers.

1:20:00

Nowadays, that's nothing. But

1:20:02

back when Instagram first started, that

1:20:03

was a lot. But those followers are not

1:20:06

engaged with me. I got them like 10

1:20:08

years ago off of my landscape

1:20:10

photography. And so a lot of you

1:20:12

watching this probably have 500 to a

1:20:14

thousand followers, but those followers

1:20:16

might actually be very engaged in your

1:20:18

subject matter and very interested in

1:20:20

the offer you have. Whereas if you look

1:20:22

at mine, all of them follow me or the

1:20:24

majority of them followed me for Pacific

1:20:26

Northwest landscape photography that I

1:20:28

was doing 10 years ago. And so now I'm

1:20:30

going to have to go through the process

1:20:31

of converting people to my new content

1:20:33

and I'm going to lose a shitload of

1:20:35

people. And so there's so many creators

1:20:37

online that have these massive I know

1:20:39

many people with millions of followers

1:20:41

that make very little off of their

1:20:44

social media content. I also know a lot

1:20:46

of people that have less than 10,000

1:20:48

followers that are making millions of

1:20:50

dollars a year off of their following.

1:20:52

Why? Because those 5,000 people that

1:20:54

follow them are their target audience,

1:20:56

their potential customers. So again,

1:20:59

don't look at your ego of the inflated

1:21:01

numbers, the the big follower count, so

1:21:03

that when your friends see it, they're

1:21:05

really impressed. No, who gives a

1:21:07

about that? You want to make sure that

1:21:09

you are growing and acquiring the

1:21:12

correct audience. So please do not be

1:21:14

discouraged if you don't have hundreds

1:21:16

of thousands or millions of followers.

1:21:18

There are plenty of people out there

1:21:19

with less than 10,000 that are making

1:21:21

more money than you could ever dream of.

1:21:23

Now another thing is you want to track

1:21:26

the performance on the platform. That is

1:21:28

an indicator that you are making content

1:21:30

that the platform prefers and so people

1:21:32

will see it and engage with it. And

1:21:34

ultimately this is probably especially

1:21:36

for the people early on in their

1:21:37

soloreneur or business days or a

1:21:40

creator. This is how people are aware of

1:21:42

your offer. Okay? So it's important for

1:21:44

you to play the game. But what I would

1:21:46

really encourage you to do is actually

1:21:49

pay more attention to conversions. So,

1:21:52

if you are a musician, are more people

1:21:55

streaming your music? If you have a

1:21:57

clothing brand, are more people buying

1:21:59

your hoodies? If you're a video editor,

1:22:01

are more people hiring you for various

1:22:03

gigs? If you're an investor, are more

1:22:05

companies coming to you for investment

1:22:08

opportunities rather than you having to

1:22:09

reach out to them? Because time and time

1:22:11

again, what I have seen people do and

1:22:14

it's a huge mistake is they build their

1:22:17

whole brand and content based on

1:22:20

performing well on Tik Tok, Instagram or

1:22:22

YouTube and they never build it based on

1:22:25

actually converting to sales or to

1:22:28

streams. This is a huge mistake because

1:22:32

unless I have this completely incorrect,

1:22:35

the majority of you probably watching

1:22:36

this aren't just trying to be famous for

1:22:38

famous sake. You're trying to drive

1:22:40

awareness that leads to a desired

1:22:42

outcome. And if you don't optimize

1:22:44

around the desired outcome, what you end

1:22:46

up doing is you're going to waste one,

1:22:48

two, maybe three years and lots of money

1:22:50

and time chasing some vanity metric that

1:22:53

doesn't actually improve your bottom

1:22:55

line. The key here is not to think of it

1:22:57

as one or the other. It's both. You need

1:22:59

to make sure that you are paying close

1:23:01

attention to how you're performing on

1:23:03

the platform so that they can see your

1:23:04

and become aware of what you have

1:23:06

to offer. But then also make sure you

1:23:08

are optimizing your content that leads

1:23:11

to action. I would rather have 30 40%

1:23:15

less likes and views and subscribers or

1:23:18

followers, but have that audience

1:23:21

convert at a higher percentage than have

1:23:24

millions of followers and have a very

1:23:26

low percentage of conversion. That's my

1:23:28

personal preference because again, we're

1:23:30

not making this content here for me to

1:23:33

become famous. That is in no way the

1:23:35

goal at all. I actually really hope that

1:23:36

doesn't ever happen. My goal is purely

1:23:38

to become known with my potential

1:23:40

customers. And that's it. I don't need

1:23:42

everybody to know who I am. And so, make

1:23:45

sure that you are mapping and building

1:23:48

out your strategy and optimizing your

1:23:51

content for the correct thing. All

1:23:53

right. Now, we're going to determine

1:23:54

your posting cadence. This is a big

1:23:57

debate, big question that a lot of

1:23:58

people have. I get it. Honestly, I

1:24:01

probably got this question at

1:24:03

least 300 times in the last year. No

1:24:06

joke. And it's a debate that occurs

1:24:08

heavily online and a lot of different

1:24:11

top creators that you should look up to

1:24:14

have differing opinions here. And so I'm

1:24:16

going to share with you my philosophy

1:24:17

here. Before we dive into the framework

1:24:19

for determining your posting cadence and

1:24:21

then another framework for how to

1:24:22

increase the volume and increase your

1:24:24

cadence, I want to give you my

1:24:26

overarching philosophy on quality versus

1:24:29

quantity. The great debate has existed

1:24:32

probably for the last eight years

1:24:33

online. And I think that a lot of people

1:24:36

that enter this debate don't actually

1:24:39

define what these two things mean and

1:24:42

what they are and what their purpose is.

1:24:44

So quantity is something that a lot of

1:24:48

people have overindexed on. I'll say,

1:24:52

okay, they believe that you post a high

1:24:55

volume of content in order to gain the

1:24:58

most impressions and show up everywhere,

1:25:00

having your face in front of people all

1:25:02

the time. And that's a beautiful

1:25:04

byproduct that occurs from posting a

1:25:07

high volume of content. But I actually

1:25:09

view volume of content as a tool in what

1:25:14

I call the accordion method. The way I

1:25:16

like to think of it is I don't know what

1:25:19

quality is and neither do you. We sit

1:25:22

around ideulating on a piece of content

1:25:24

and we'll say something like this is a

1:25:26

highquality piece and that ultimately is

1:25:29

a subjective opinion. That is you

1:25:32

subjectively saying this is high

1:25:33

quality. But we don't give a about

1:25:35

what you think. We care about what your

1:25:37

audience thinks. Your audience is who

1:25:39

determines what quality is, not you. And

1:25:42

we use volume to acquire that data

1:25:46

quicker. If you were to post 10 videos

1:25:49

over 30 days, okay, that's one video

1:25:52

every 3 days. Cool. If you were to take

1:25:55

the same amount of videos and post them

1:25:56

in a week, you're going to gain insights

1:26:00

faster. And what insights am I talking

1:26:02

about? What your audience is resonating

1:26:04

with. What are they liking more? What

1:26:06

are they commenting on more? what's

1:26:07

getting more views. Those are indicators

1:26:10

of your audience signaling to you, the

1:26:12

creator, hey, I call this higher quality

1:26:15

content. Quality does not have anything

1:26:17

to do with the fancy that we're

1:26:19

trying to do here, the lights, the

1:26:21

camera, right? Like the the set that

1:26:23

you're working on. No, that. That

1:26:25

has nothing to do with quality. Think

1:26:26

about this. Some of the most viral

1:26:28

videos, most viewed and engaged with

1:26:30

videos ever online are filmed at night

1:26:34

in the dark on a cell phone.

1:26:37

Like, they're grainy. You can barely

1:26:39

tell what's going on, right? Quality is

1:26:41

a subjective thing. And because it's

1:26:44

subjective, I would rather have the

1:26:45

audience determine what it is rather

1:26:47

than me pontificating on what I think

1:26:49

quality is. So again, you post high

1:26:52

quantity, high volume content to get the

1:26:55

learnings on what your audience says is

1:26:57

quality and then what I believe you do

1:27:00

is you compress the accordion and that's

1:27:03

when you start to put more effort per

1:27:05

piece of content. We're going to get

1:27:06

into that in a little bit here. I don't

1:27:08

want to spoil the mana right now, but

1:27:10

that's my overarching philosophy and

1:27:12

kind of the the shade the lens that you

1:27:14

can view the rest of this section

1:27:16

through. So now that we understand what

1:27:18

quality and quantity are, we are going

1:27:19

to determine our posting cadence. What I

1:27:22

would encourage you to do is first start

1:27:24

with the highest leverage platform.

1:27:26

Okay, what do I mean by the highest

1:27:28

leverage platform? Well, one, what are

1:27:30

you getting the most results from? Where

1:27:31

are you getting your leads? Where are

1:27:33

you getting the majority of your

1:27:34

engagement? Right? What is performing

1:27:36

well by the platform standards and by

1:27:39

conversion standards? And number two,

1:27:41

what platform allows you to create one

1:27:43

piece of content that then you're able

1:27:45

to repurpose into many different pieces

1:27:47

of content? Typically, what this looks

1:27:48

like is a long form piece of content,

1:27:49

aka this course, right? A YouTube video

1:27:52

is going to provide you so much ability

1:27:55

to be able to, like I said at the top,

1:27:58

clip moments, so you can get shorts, uh,

1:28:00

you're able to pull the transcript, get

1:28:02

quotes, use that transcript to then make

1:28:04

a LinkedIn post. You can extract the

1:28:06

audio for a podcast. You can then pull

1:28:08

stills from the video to use in social

1:28:10

posts. It's a very high leverage medium

1:28:14

and platform. Now, please again, I

1:28:17

really pushed this in the last section

1:28:19

and I'm going to just continue

1:28:20

reinforcing it. If you are tracking

1:28:23

conversions, which you should,

1:28:24

conversions offplatform, if you notice

1:28:27

that there's one or two platforms that

1:28:28

are leading to a lot more conversions

1:28:31

offplatform, please double, triple,

1:28:34

quadruple down on those platforms. On

1:28:37

one of the teams that I was running, we

1:28:39

learned when actually looking at the

1:28:40

data that YouTube was our number one

1:28:43

lead provider, Instagram was number two,

1:28:45

and LinkedIn was number three. But

1:28:47

here's the very interesting thing. That

1:28:49

was by absolute. But if you look at

1:28:51

percentage of audience that is actually

1:28:54

converting, LinkedIn was number one by a

1:28:56

mile, it was a way smaller

1:28:58

audience because it was a platform that

1:29:00

we took on and started really optimizing

1:29:02

for way later than YouTube and

1:29:04

Instagram. So what we realized is we

1:29:06

should allocate far more resources to

1:29:09

LinkedIn. If it has a higher percentage

1:29:12

of qualified leads coming from it, all

1:29:15

we have to do is increase the amount of

1:29:17

impressions we're getting and in theory

1:29:19

that will be the number one platform,

1:29:21

not just by percentage, but by absolute

1:29:23

leads. We discovered this at a time when

1:29:26

LinkedIn was just starting to emerge as

1:29:28

like the next big platform. And so we

1:29:31

actually as a team had kind of devalued

1:29:33

it. We viewed it as an afterthought. It

1:29:36

wasn't our number one priority. But the

1:29:38

moment that we looked at the data, bing

1:29:41

bing bing, track your data. The moment

1:29:43

we did that, we saw massive returns. All

1:29:46

of a sudden, LinkedIn became something

1:29:48

that we were putting. I mean, we were

1:29:50

spending probably 20 $30,000 a month

1:29:52

just on LinkedIn organic content alone.

1:29:55

The next one is actually going further

1:29:58

or deeper on what we started this

1:30:00

section off on, which is volume for

1:30:02

speed and learnings, not just reach. I

1:30:04

encourage you in the early days to

1:30:07

increase whatever volume you think you

1:30:09

need to do right now, increase it. Okay?

1:30:11

And the reason why I said it up top, but

1:30:13

I'm going to reinforce it and emphasize

1:30:15

it again. You want to know what your

1:30:17

audience deems as quality. And you want

1:30:19

to know that as soon as possible. And so

1:30:21

what I would encourage you to do is

1:30:22

increase the frequency in which you

1:30:24

post. A great example of this is a

1:30:25

previous team that I ran. We started our

1:30:28

YouTube efforts by posting three videos

1:30:30

a week. Then we increased it to five.

1:30:33

Now, were these highly optimized YouTube

1:30:35

videos? No. I wouldn't even call them

1:30:37

edited. They were just trimmed. There

1:30:39

was no editing being applied. And there

1:30:40

was definitely no graphics or any

1:30:42

intentionality to how we crafted the

1:30:44

intro, the packaging, nothing. What we

1:30:46

were doing though is not trying to

1:30:47

optimize because we weren't at that

1:30:49

phase yet. We were at the learning

1:30:52

acquisition phase. We were trying to

1:30:54

understand what is the audience

1:30:55

resonating with the most. What are the

1:30:57

questions they're asking? How are they

1:30:59

engaging and behaving with this content?

1:31:02

What this allows you to do is then

1:31:04

determine what they're with and

1:31:07

do more of that. And when I say do more

1:31:10

of that, I don't necessarily mean more

1:31:12

volume. I mean putting more effort per

1:31:15

piece. So let's say you were posting

1:31:16

five YouTube videos a week. That's a

1:31:18

lot. What if you took the effort that

1:31:21

you put and the time and resources you

1:31:24

put into five videos a week into one?

1:31:26

And that one video was based off of the

1:31:28

knowledge and insights that you now have

1:31:31

of what your audience has said to you is

1:31:33

quality. Sounds like you might be

1:31:35

getting some traction and actually start

1:31:36

growing and getting subscribers and

1:31:37

views. It's crazy and it actually

1:31:39

works. Quality is not your

1:31:41

personal preference. Quality is

1:31:43

determined by your audience. Plain and

1:31:46

simple. One of the biggest traps

1:31:48

I see a lot of you making is that you

1:31:50

are making the decision for your

1:31:52

audience. Maybe you have a piece of

1:31:54

content that you've been sitting on and

1:31:55

you think, "Ah, this isn't high quality

1:31:57

enough and you're just not posting it.

1:31:59

You're not putting it out there and

1:32:01

you're making the subjective decision

1:32:03

that this is not worth your audience's

1:32:05

time and they're not going to get value

1:32:06

out of it." But how do you know if you

1:32:08

don't put it out? Especially in the

1:32:09

beginning. I understand mature creators,

1:32:11

you get to a point when you are a

1:32:13

content creator where you do actually be

1:32:15

able like you know this is not going to

1:32:17

hit. Like we can't even post

1:32:18

this. Nobody's going to give a

1:32:19

about this. That does happen. But in the

1:32:21

early days, you don't have a

1:32:22

clue. You don't know anything about your

1:32:24

audience or what they want. You have

1:32:26

your perception of what you think they

1:32:28

want, but more than likely, it's not

1:32:30

that accurate. And so, I encourage you,

1:32:32

stop guessing. Stop making the decision

1:32:34

for them and allow them to tell you what

1:32:37

they want. And the last point in

1:32:39

determining your content cadence or your

1:32:41

upload cadence is avoid the perfect post

1:32:44

trap. I like to say that perfect is the

1:32:46

enemy of posted. If you're struggling to

1:32:47

post

1:32:49

daily, yes, me too. I agree with you.

1:32:54

Most people can't post daily. That is

1:32:56

kind of like an absurd level to just

1:32:58

immediately jump into. And so, I would

1:33:00

encourage you, visit the idea of posting

1:33:02

three times per week. Visit the

1:33:04

idea of posting once a week, once every

1:33:06

other week. Look at what we're doing.

1:33:07

We're probably going to be posting one

1:33:08

long form video on YouTube a month,

1:33:11

maybe every three weeks or so. But we're

1:33:13

putting more effort per

1:33:16

piece rather than high volume. Now,

1:33:19

Caleb, I thought you just said do high

1:33:21

volume in the beginning in order to

1:33:22

learn what the audience resonates with.

1:33:24

Well, I have a little bit of a leg up.

1:33:26

And I'll give you kind of like an

1:33:28

insight into that just so that you

1:33:29

understand that I'm not bullshitting

1:33:31

you. In the last year, I met with over

1:33:33

2,000 businesses and consistently ran

1:33:35

question and answer sessions with them.

1:33:37

I did a roundt session with literally

1:33:39

2,000 business owners. And I know what

1:33:43

the common questions were. I have a very

1:33:45

good pulse on what people are wanting to

1:33:47

hear from me based on what they would

1:33:49

ask me at these Q&As's. I also have been

1:33:54

in the industry for a very long time.

1:33:56

And so, not only do I know what people

1:33:57

are wanting, I also know what they need.

1:34:00

I know what the majority of the industry

1:34:01

is currently saying. Half of these

1:34:03

on YouTube are telling you a lot

1:34:06

of around how to grow your

1:34:08

brand or how to scale your organic

1:34:10

content. and I've seen it long enough

1:34:11

that now I'm at a point where I'm a

1:34:13

little bit fed up and that's why I'm

1:34:14

putting this content out for you. I

1:34:16

would encourage you unless you have

1:34:18

those insights, unless you've met with

1:34:20

2,000 different individuals that map

1:34:23

towards your ideal customer, then I

1:34:25

would probably start with high volume.

1:34:28

But again, if high volume means one post

1:34:32

every other week in the beginning

1:34:33

because that's all you can do, then do

1:34:36

that. whatever you can actually put out

1:34:39

consistently, please start with that.

1:34:41

Don't try and jump to the Ronnie Coleman

1:34:44

method and squat 800 lb when you've

1:34:46

never squatted 135. And the last point

1:34:49

to that is again, stop aiming for

1:34:51

perfection, speed wins. So, for example,

1:34:54

we're filming this course, right? And

1:34:55

we've invested a good amount of money

1:34:57

into this and a lot of effort and we

1:35:00

have been very intentional with all the

1:35:03

little elements, right? like uh the set,

1:35:05

the lighting, uh the framing, the way

1:35:08

that we're shooting this on three

1:35:09

different cameras, the audio, like all

1:35:11

this right? We're trying to be

1:35:13

very cognizant of all of it. But there's

1:35:14

been semis that go by. There's been

1:35:18

police officers that are, you know, woo

1:35:20

woo, the sirens going by. There's all

1:35:22

kinds of And it's not perfect. And

1:35:24

we could stop every single time and we

1:35:26

could potentially even decide this isn't

1:35:29

the right space. Uh maybe we should have

1:35:31

filmed in something that was more uh

1:35:33

audio friendly. But guess what? Perfect

1:35:34

is the enemy of Postit. And so we are

1:35:37

still going to capture this, put it

1:35:39

together, and we are going to post it.

1:35:41

And what have we been doing every night

1:35:43

after we finish filming? We've been

1:35:45

going home and figuring out what we

1:35:46

would do differently and how we're going

1:35:48

to improve on the next version of this.

1:35:50

So, what I would encourage you to do is

1:35:52

instead of letting all the different

1:35:54

problems or issues you see with the

1:35:56

content you're working on right now and

1:35:58

using that as a reason to not post,

1:36:00

that. Post it and take note of what

1:36:02

you're going to do on future pieces that

1:36:06

you make. So, we've determined our

1:36:08

posting cadence and we're at a point now

1:36:11

where we've been doing it

1:36:12

consistently. Congratulations. Good for

1:36:15

you. That's awesome. A lot of

1:36:17

people give up after like a week or two.

1:36:18

And so if you've made it even like 2 or

1:36:20

3 months of posting, you are in the top

1:36:22

1%. So congrats. You're awesome.

1:36:25

I'm proud of you. And I want you to do

1:36:27

more. And by more, I mean I want you to

1:36:29

increase your volume. And here's how

1:36:31

we're going to do it. One, you are going

1:36:32

to leverage a content pillar approach. I

1:36:35

want you to identify your pillar

1:36:37

content. Typically, this is more long

1:36:40

form content. Okay? So, think like a

1:36:41

YouTube video, long form, a deep dive uh

1:36:45

thread. Maybe it's a long form written

1:36:47

post on LinkedIn or it's a newsletter

1:36:49

that you send out to your email list.

1:36:50

Then what you're going to do is you're

1:36:52

going to do what I affectionately call

1:36:54

mining. You're going to go through your

1:36:56

long- form content and mine for the

1:36:59

gold. If it's a newsletter, what you're

1:37:01

looking for is bite-sized chunks that

1:37:04

are self-contained. So, this is a

1:37:06

paragraph that you have in your

1:37:07

newsletter that you could extract and

1:37:09

pull and it would make sense and be

1:37:11

valuable in and of itself without the

1:37:14

other context. You're also probably

1:37:15

going to find maybe a quote or two that

1:37:17

you could pull from that. Okay? And then

1:37:19

you could probably also do a version

1:37:21

where you take the entire newsletter and

1:37:24

you summarize it in call it five or six

1:37:27

sentences. So, a medium form post on

1:37:30

YouTube. If you have a long form YouTube

1:37:32

video, well, what you're going to have

1:37:33

is an editor or editors that go through

1:37:36

and they're mining for the gold. They're

1:37:38

going to find the moments and extract

1:37:40

them that they know are going to perform

1:37:42

well and resonate with your audience.

1:37:44

Typically, you're looking for a powerful

1:37:47

moment that maybe is a slightly

1:37:48

contrarian view or is a nuanced take on

1:37:51

an already discussed subject. For

1:37:52

example, my quality versus quantity

1:37:54

moment. I almost guarantee Trevor is

1:37:56

going to clip that moment and we'll post

1:37:57

it on Instagram, Tik Tok, YouTube short,

1:37:59

all that because that's going to be

1:38:00

a moment that will do well for our

1:38:02

audience. Now, this is nothing new. I

1:38:04

like to call it the waterfall

1:38:05

distribution model. But ultimately, I

1:38:08

got to pay homage to the actual man who

1:38:10

came up with this. This is the OG Gary

1:38:11

Vee. He came up with the content

1:38:13

framework and how he extracts thousands

1:38:17

of posts from one long form piece of

1:38:19

content. And he's been doing this since

1:38:21

I want to say like

1:38:23

2015, 2016, right? Like originally it

1:38:26

started with releasing Daily V and then

1:38:28

clipping moments from that and posting

1:38:29

them on Instagram before reals, Tik Tok,

1:38:31

any of that was a thing. And so here's

1:38:32

what I recommend you do. Take your high

1:38:35

value content. Let's use a YouTube video

1:38:37

for example. And what you're going to do

1:38:38

is you are going to break this down into

1:38:41

short form clips. You're going to

1:38:43

extract quotes that you can put out on

1:38:45

threads and X. You're gonna take the

1:38:46

transcript and find a moment that you

1:38:48

can rewrite into a LinkedIn post. You're

1:38:51

gonna then take that LinkedIn post and

1:38:52

post it on Facebook as well. Then one of

1:38:55

the shorts that you clipped from that

1:38:58

YouTube video that you post on

1:39:00

Instagram, use the LinkedIn post as your

1:39:03

caption for that post. Okay? Do you see

1:39:05

how literally in the moment right now,

1:39:07

I'm not looking at notes. I'm literally

1:39:08

coming up with this in the moment

1:39:10

because there is so much that you can

1:39:12

extract from a YouTube long form video.

1:39:15

I haven't even gotten to carousels yet.

1:39:17

Now, what I want you to do is take the

1:39:19

different sections from your YouTube

1:39:23

video and make two carousel slides per

1:39:26

section. Now, you got to simplify. You

1:39:28

can't have a fuckload of text. In fact,

1:39:30

the best practice is to have one very

1:39:32

basic, very easy to understand image

1:39:35

followed by one, two sentences at most

1:39:38

per slide. And so diving even deeper on

1:39:41

it, you want to make sure that the first

1:39:43

two slides in your carousel are taken

1:39:46

from the hook that you made for the

1:39:48

YouTube video. So reinterpret the hook

1:39:50

that you made for the YouTube video into

1:39:52

the carousel opening two slides. The

1:39:54

reason why is because when it's served

1:39:56

immediately, they're seeing the first uh

1:39:58

tile, the first slide. But if they

1:40:00

didn't engage with it, Instagram gives

1:40:02

you a second atbat. How nice of them.

1:40:04

They're going to serve the carousel

1:40:06

again to your followers, but it's going

1:40:08

to be on slide number two. So, you want

1:40:09

to ensure that you have a hook for one

1:40:11

and two. Now, another thing to note is

1:40:14

uh this is not a rule, it's an

1:40:15

observation. Often times, listicles tend

1:40:18

to, at least as of February 2025, they

1:40:21

do better in carousel form. So, if you

1:40:24

have a video that is 10 things I learned

1:40:27

about investing in my 30s, okay, cool.

1:40:29

That's going to be an amazing amazing

1:40:31

carousel. However, if you have like a

1:40:34

really complex deep dive on a subject

1:40:36

matter that is like not in any way made

1:40:40

for the lay listener or viewer, then I

1:40:43

would probably consider maybe just

1:40:46

taking one section of that video and

1:40:48

then expanding that into a carousel

1:40:51

rather than trying to compress an entire

1:40:53

video. So, when I say taking a YouTube

1:40:56

video, please try to stick more towards

1:40:58

listicles when you're doing this.

1:41:00

Otherwise, you're going to want to just

1:41:01

take one section of the YouTube video

1:41:03

and turn that into the carousel. So, in

1:41:04

this example, I couldn't even keep track

1:41:07

of how many different pieces of content

1:41:08

I just listed out. It's easily over 10

1:41:10

pieces of content that we just created

1:41:12

off of one video that you filmed. Insane

1:41:15

amounts of output for what you put in,

1:41:18

aka very high leverage activity. Now,

1:41:20

the next thing that you're going to want

1:41:21

to do is scale by platform, not all at

1:41:24

once. First, we picked our medium. Then,

1:41:25

we picked our platforms. Then, we

1:41:27

determined our posting cadence. Cool.

1:41:29

We've been doing that consistently for a

1:41:30

while now on two or three platforms that

1:41:32

we determined were our highest priority

1:41:35

platforms. Now that I of Sauron approach

1:41:38

that I mentioned earlier is really going

1:41:40

to come in handy. Do not try to scale up

1:41:44

all three or two platforms that you are

1:41:46

emphasizing at once. If you do this, you

1:41:49

won't do any of them well. And so just

1:41:51

like I mentioned with the Sauron

1:41:52

approach, what you're going to do is

1:41:54

let's say for example your top three,

1:41:56

you go LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram. All

1:41:58

right, LinkedIn being number one, we're

1:42:00

going to attack increasing volume there

1:42:04

first. So, what does that look like?

1:42:05

Well, you make sure that YouTube and

1:42:08

Instagram are on maintenance mode.

1:42:10

They're not going to go down, but

1:42:12

they're not going to be growing. That is

1:42:14

not your emphasis right now. You want

1:42:15

those just consistently putting out

1:42:17

enough content to keep the current

1:42:18

audience engaged. If you grow, amazing.

1:42:20

That's a wonderful little surprise, but

1:42:22

that is not our goal. Maintain focus on

1:42:25

LinkedIn. And when we're focusing on

1:42:27

LinkedIn and scaling this up, you have

1:42:29

two different ways to scale it up. In my

1:42:31

opinion, you can either literally

1:42:33

increase the volume of posts you do or

1:42:36

you can increase the amount of effort

1:42:38

you put per post. As of February 2025, I

1:42:42

actually would encourage you instead of

1:42:44

just increasing the volume, I would

1:42:46

start with increasing the amount of

1:42:47

effort you put per post. So let's say

1:42:49

for example, you were posting five times

1:42:51

a week on LinkedIn. I actually would

1:42:54

encourage you as of right now, and this

1:42:56

is way different than what I would have

1:42:58

said a year ago. I'm very much on the

1:43:00

higher effort per piece of content train

1:43:03

right now. And so I would take the

1:43:05

effort you put into five pieces and put

1:43:07

it into three. I am finding you get far

1:43:09

more out of a very, very extensive and

1:43:12

high value piece of content than you do

1:43:15

off of medium value content at a high

1:43:18

volume. Here's an example. There was an

1:43:20

individual that I worked with. They

1:43:21

loved volume and they wanted to post a

1:43:24

minimum of four videos a month on

1:43:26

YouTube. Now, when we did that, those

1:43:29

videos would average around 250,000

1:43:31

views a video, which is really great for

1:43:33

most people, but according to our

1:43:35

standards, that was actually lower than

1:43:37

what we were looking for. Add all of

1:43:39

that up together, and that's a million

1:43:40

views a month. I would argue that one

1:43:43

video a month that gets a million views

1:43:45

is way more valuable for both the

1:43:48

audience and yourself than the four

1:43:51

videos that get 250,000 views. Well,

1:43:53

Caleb, where did you come to that

1:43:55

conclusion? It's the same collective

1:43:56

views. Ah, it's the same number of

1:44:00

views. It's not the same number of

1:44:02

eyeballs. Meaning the video that got a

1:44:05

million views had a high percentage of

1:44:09

those views be new

1:44:11

audience. These are people that have

1:44:14

never consumed your content or rarely

1:44:16

consumed your content before. Now the

1:44:18

videos that got 250,000 more than 60 to

1:44:21

70% of the views were from the current

1:44:24

audience. And there's nothing wrong with

1:44:25

nurturing your current audience. I want

1:44:26

to make sure that that's clear. But can

1:44:28

you see a massive discrepancy here? It's

1:44:31

very clear to me that the millionview

1:44:33

video once per month has a

1:44:35

disproportionate amount of value

1:44:37

compared to four 250,000 view videos a

1:44:40

month. I believe that this is why Mr.

1:44:42

Beast Jimmy Donaldson went with this

1:44:45

method. When he was posting content on

1:44:47

YouTube, he wasn't trying to post a

1:44:49

video every 3 days. He wasn't trying to

1:44:50

post a video every week. He was posting

1:44:52

a video every 4 to 8 weeks. There was

1:44:54

times where he would go two months in

1:44:56

between posting a video. Why? because he

1:44:58

was putting so many resources and so

1:45:01

much effort into each piece. Because

1:45:03

what he knew is rather than the majority

1:45:06

of YouTubers who are trying to put out a

1:45:07

video every week, if he put all that

1:45:09

effort into a video every six weeks, way

1:45:12

more people were going to see it, way

1:45:14

more people were going to enjoy it and

1:45:15

share it with others because it was such

1:45:17

a crazy concept and crazy execution of

1:45:20

that concept. And so I'm actually on the

1:45:23

lower volume, higher effort per piece

1:45:26

train. And the reason why I'm saying

1:45:27

lower volume and not higher quality is

1:45:30

again quality is subjective. Now over

1:45:33

time you get to a point where you know

1:45:35

what your audience deems as quality. So

1:45:37

you could use the term higher quality

1:45:39

content. I just don't like to say it

1:45:41

because I don't want to confuse you and

1:45:42

make you think that I know what quality

1:45:45

is. I don't. You do. So back to

1:45:47

LinkedIn. What I want you to do is focus

1:45:49

on putting more effort per piece of

1:45:52

content you do. Now what do you do more

1:45:55

of? Well, if we've been doing five posts

1:45:58

a week, for example, we have a pretty

1:45:59

good insight on what topics and what

1:46:01

kind of structure or formats people on

1:46:04

the platform are resonating with and

1:46:06

preferring. So, one, we can just do less

1:46:09

of the other and more of that. But

1:46:12

here's another little hack for you. Look

1:46:14

at the top 10% performing content. Take

1:46:17

the last 90 days, for example, or if

1:46:19

you've only been posting for 30 days,

1:46:20

take the last 30 days. Whatever amount

1:46:22

of time that you can do up to 90 days.

1:46:24

And what I want you to do is identify

1:46:27

your top 10% content. And then what I

1:46:30

want you to do is study the out of

1:46:33

it. And what you're looking for is not

1:46:36

all these different things that you

1:46:37

think could have been the reason why it

1:46:39

performed well. What you're looking for

1:46:40

is what occurred in all of these pieces

1:46:42

of content that I can then replicate and

1:46:44

put into every piece I do moving

1:46:46

forward. If it exists in only one or

1:46:48

two, then it's kind of a crapshoot. But

1:46:51

if you identify, and usually you're only

1:46:53

going to find one, maybe two things. If

1:46:55

you identify those one or two things,

1:46:57

you raise the probability of your future

1:46:59

content performing better than average.

1:47:02

And so what you're doing is you're

1:47:03

always learning and optimizing off of

1:47:06

your top content, not your general

1:47:08

content. A lot of people look at

1:47:10

everything they're making and they try

1:47:12

and extract learnings from it. But why

1:47:13

would you want to learn from the bottom

1:47:15

10% or the bottom 20%. I want to always

1:47:17

be looking at the top tier performance

1:47:20

and how can I replicate these scenarios,

1:47:23

these conditions that led to it

1:47:26

performing so well. And again, please

1:47:28

increase the volume because you see that

1:47:31

that platform, that channel is driving

1:47:34

more conversions. Again, whatever

1:47:36

conversions look like for you. If that's

1:47:38

email newsletter signups, if that's more

1:47:41

streams to your music, if that's more

1:47:43

downloads on your short film on Amazon

1:47:45

Prime, whatever it is, I want you to

1:47:48

optimize for conversions first. And

1:47:51

another question that I get a lot of

1:47:52

times is like, if my content isn't

1:47:54

performing well, well, what do I do?

1:47:56

Well, you do what I just said. Even if

1:47:58

your content isn't performing super

1:48:00

well, there is some content that's

1:48:02

performing better than others. And so

1:48:04

look at the top 10% and study what that

1:48:07

is. And I would encourage you to do this

1:48:09

on a monthly basis. If you just stick

1:48:11

with what the original core findings,

1:48:13

okay, cool. You're just optimizing on

1:48:15

that. But if every month you re-evaluate

1:48:17

the top 10%, you're always going to be

1:48:19

lading up. You're always improving off

1:48:22

of your best work and learning from your

1:48:25

best work rather than sticking with the

1:48:26

learnings that you had 6 months ago. So

1:48:28

the next thing that we're going to focus

1:48:29

on is making your content sustainable.

1:48:33

Like we said at the top, this only

1:48:35

matters if we stick with it for a long

1:48:37

time. That's when we start to get the

1:48:39

actual returns on our investment. And

1:48:42

so, first off, I want to just say you

1:48:44

need to be playing for the long term. If

1:48:47

you hate video, you're not going to

1:48:48

stick with it. So, don't do

1:48:49

video. Eventually, after making content,

1:48:51

maybe as an audio only format or a

1:48:54

design focus or potentially even doing

1:48:56

written, you may get comfortable with

1:48:58

the idea of putting yourself out there

1:49:00

online, getting feedback, and being okay

1:49:03

with that feedback. In which case, maybe

1:49:04

you'll get more comfortable with the

1:49:06

idea of doing video. But if that idea or

1:49:08

that concept of filming a video like

1:49:10

this with a camera here, camera here,

1:49:12

camera there, that sounds freaky to most

1:49:14

people, I wouldn't push yourself to do

1:49:16

it. Again, I want you to ease into this

1:49:18

so that it's something that you can do

1:49:19

for a very long time. Content creation

1:49:21

should be sustainable for years, not

1:49:24

months. Now, the next thing is to build

1:49:26

a simple content machine. What do I mean

1:49:28

by that? Well, we're not Mr. Beast on

1:49:30

day one. And so, what you need to do is

1:49:33

set a baseline of what you are wanting

1:49:35

to accomplish. Let's say it's one video

1:49:36

every two weeks for YouTube. And maybe

1:49:38

it's posting three shorts a week on

1:49:41

Instagram and YouTube Shorts. Cool.

1:49:43

That's simple. Now, what we can do is

1:49:45

consistently do that. And if we do it

1:49:47

for 2 or 3 months, then what we can do

1:49:48

is raise the bar and increase the volume

1:49:51

that we want to make. Some people find

1:49:54

batching content to be highly effective

1:49:56

for them. Some people will literally

1:49:58

block a 12-hour day and film three or

1:50:01

four YouTube videos, some shorts, and a

1:50:03

couple podcasts. And if that works for

1:50:05

you, amazing. What I have observed,

1:50:07

again, not a rule, just an observation,

1:50:09

is for a lot of individuals, this puts a

1:50:12

lot of pressure on the day. And if you

1:50:14

find yourself feeling that pressure a

1:50:16

lot of times, again, what I have

1:50:17

observed is that that causes poor

1:50:20

performance on the day of filming

1:50:22

because they feel so much pressure they

1:50:24

get anxiety, they end up getting sick or

1:50:26

all these crazy things start popping up

1:50:28

rather than having it be more of a low

1:50:31

pressure environment where maybe you

1:50:33

film a video here, a video there. The

1:50:36

the thing that you need to do is make

1:50:38

sure you are aligning your strategy with

1:50:41

your calendar and your schedule. What do

1:50:44

you have available to you? Do you have

1:50:45

time to be able to film it throughout

1:50:46

the week or do you have to batch? If

1:50:48

you're in a scenario where you have to

1:50:50

batch content, what I would recommend is

1:50:53

ensuring that the team you're working

1:50:54

with is a team that can make the

1:50:57

environment conducive for you to deliver

1:51:00

your best content. Which leads me to the

1:51:02

next point, which is remove yourself

1:51:04

from the execution. And we're going to

1:51:05

go really deep on this one. Out of all

1:51:07

of these different points within the

1:51:09

make it sustainable section here, this

1:51:11

is where we're going to spend the

1:51:12

majority of the time. If you can afford

1:51:14

it or as soon as you can afford it,

1:51:18

please invest in building a team. Now,

1:51:21

I'm going to go really in depth on this

1:51:23

in the next chapter or the next section

1:51:25

of this course here uh where we

1:51:27

literally talk only about team. But if

1:51:29

you have the capital, if you have the

1:51:31

resources to do it, I encourage you to

1:51:33

invest in this immediately. Now, this

1:51:35

might look like hiring freelancers in

1:51:36

the beginning or agencies that you work

1:51:38

with, something that's a little bit more

1:51:40

minimal on the upfront cost and allows

1:51:42

you to test and make sure that you're

1:51:44

getting a positive ROI. So then you can

1:51:47

reinvest and redeploy capital into

1:51:51

furthering and building out your team.

1:51:54

Now, about the team, something that I

1:51:56

have observed is that filming content is

1:52:01

hard for the talent. Why is it hard?

1:52:03

Well, there's high pressure, right?

1:52:05

We're wondering, uh, how is this going

1:52:07

to perform? Am I going to be able to

1:52:08

deliver this and make a great piece of

1:52:11

content off of it? Yeah, sure. That's

1:52:12

the natural. But then there's also these

1:52:14

like crazy questions that pop up. When

1:52:16

you're staring into the camera lens and

1:52:18

you're saying all this you're

1:52:20

wondering, is this actually interesting?

1:52:21

Is it valuable? Are people going to

1:52:23

actually learn and change their actions

1:52:26

based on what I'm sharing? Are they

1:52:28

enjoying this? Is this boring? These are

1:52:31

all natural questions that come up. And

1:52:33

so that happens during the film session.

1:52:35

Then oftentimes, and I'm sure if you're

1:52:37

listening to this or watching this and

1:52:39

you've filmed content, you're resonating

1:52:41

with what I'm saying. You drive home.

1:52:43

And on the drive home, you're like,

1:52:44

"Fuck, I I could have done so much

1:52:46

better. That was not very good." And

1:52:47

you're going through all of these like

1:52:50

inner critic, like a inner critic

1:52:52

monologue that you're having with

1:52:53

yourself. Here's how I solve this issue.

1:52:57

I make sure that the team that is around

1:53:00

the film session that is around the

1:53:03

content creation makes it easier for

1:53:06

you, not harder for you. What do I mean?

1:53:08

Well, I have an entire playbook on how

1:53:10

to go about creating an environment to

1:53:13

make your talent feel comfortable. So,

1:53:16

for those of you who are building your

1:53:17

brand and trying to get a team around

1:53:19

you, this playbook will be gold.

1:53:22

For those of you that are the content

1:53:24

creators behind the scenes that are

1:53:26

trying to improve how you capture

1:53:29

content with your talent, this will be

1:53:31

gold. And I'm going to walk you

1:53:33

through it just a little bit at a high

1:53:34

level, but again, I would encourage you

1:53:35

download it, study it, study it, study

1:53:38

it. I believe that it is not the content

1:53:41

creator's job to create the right

1:53:42

environment. It's the team's job. And

1:53:45

so, it starts, in my opinion, with the

1:53:46

videographer. Now, to solve the problem

1:53:49

of you wondering if what you're saying

1:53:51

is interesting, what you need is a

1:53:52

videographer who gives you visual

1:53:54

feedback as you are filming. So, what I

1:53:57

started to notice that I just naturally

1:53:59

would do when I was filming with talent

1:54:01

is I would nod my head when they were

1:54:03

saying something good. Now, as what they

1:54:06

were saying escalated, it got better and

1:54:08

better and better. The intensity in

1:54:10

which I nodded my head would increase.

1:54:12

And it sounds funny, but every single

1:54:14

person I've ever filmed with actually

1:54:16

commented on this and would tell me how

1:54:18

much it reinforced what they were

1:54:20

saying. They knew, "Oh, okay. This is a

1:54:22

good moment. I'm going to go deeper on

1:54:24

this." And so what you're doing is you

1:54:26

are giving them real time feedback

1:54:28

because the difficulty with creating

1:54:31

content is the feedback loop. It can be

1:54:33

fairly quick with social media, of

1:54:34

course, but it's still pretty extended.

1:54:37

We're going to film this video and this

1:54:38

course will not drop for a minimum of 6

1:54:41

weeks. I mean, that is the earliest

1:54:42

it'll drop from when we filmed it. So, I

1:54:44

won't get any feedback from you, the

1:54:47

audience, which is who I care about the

1:54:48

most, for 6 weeks minimum, probably more

1:54:51

like two months. But what I am getting

1:54:53

is Trevor behind the camera, is nodding

1:54:55

his head or when I say something that he

1:54:57

thought was really good, he's putting a

1:54:58

thumbs up and letting me know that's

1:55:00

some good One, maybe I'm going to

1:55:02

double down and go further on it and

1:55:04

dive deeper, but two, I just know that

1:55:06

what I'm saying isn't boring as

1:55:08

This is incredibly empowering and

1:55:11

enabling for the talent that you are

1:55:13

working with. It literally changes the

1:55:16

way that they deliver their message.

1:55:18

These are all tactics that ladder up to

1:55:20

the principle of making a conducive

1:55:22

environment to capture great content.

1:55:25

Okay? So, they all all the tactics flow

1:55:27

out of this principle. And one of them

1:55:29

is when they're done saying something

1:55:32

great, when you take a break, when a

1:55:33

take is over, go up and give them a fist

1:55:35

pound or a high five. I've been doing it

1:55:37

my whole career. I've been the guy

1:55:38

behind the scenes doing it. And now I am

1:55:40

in front of the camera in this like very

1:55:43

like intimidating environment. And every

1:55:45

time that we take a break, Trevor's

1:55:47

coming up and giving me a fist pound and

1:55:48

saying that was great and then calling

1:55:50

out one or two things that I said that

1:55:52

he thought really stood out. I've been

1:55:55

doing it for years, but as somebody who

1:55:57

is now on the receiving end of it, I

1:55:59

can't tell you how effective

1:56:01

this is. It's unbelievable because one,

1:56:04

it keeps my momentum going. I'm tired.

1:56:06

Like we've been filming this for a long

1:56:08

time. I'm exhausted. It literally gives

1:56:11

me energy. And I would see it with

1:56:13

talent that I've worked with where I I

1:56:15

remember I would see them their energy

1:56:16

starting to fade and then I behind the

1:56:19

camera would just increase my energy.

1:56:21

Even if I was exhaust, I'd be like, "All

1:56:23

right, I'm going to figure it out." And

1:56:25

they match that. And so what you want is

1:56:28

you want a team around you that is

1:56:31

trying to make your environment or the

1:56:34

environment you're filming in the

1:56:35

easiest possible for you to communicate

1:56:38

the message you have within you to your

1:56:40

audience. The 2.0 version of this is not

1:56:44

only are they giving you dabs, giving

1:56:45

you praise when you're doing a good job,

1:56:47

they are also thinking through the frame

1:56:50

of a skeptic. They're thinking through

1:56:52

all of the objections that your audience

1:56:55

is going to have when they consume the

1:56:57

content. And just like a good video

1:56:59

sales letter, a VSSL on your website

1:57:02

overcomes sales objections that maybe

1:57:04

the prospect would bring to the

1:57:06

salesperson on the call, you're

1:57:09

overcoming those in the video before

1:57:11

they even get on the call. And I like to

1:57:13

think of really welldone content as

1:57:16

accomplishing the same thing. What we're

1:57:18

doing after each section here is Trevor

1:57:20

and I are sitting down and going, "Okay,

1:57:22

what are some areas that we could like

1:57:23

poke holes in? What what context do we

1:57:25

need it? What questions can we answer

1:57:27

for you guys before you even ask it?"

1:57:30

Because ultimately, I believe if you do

1:57:32

that, you are going to build greater

1:57:34

trust with the audience. You make it

1:57:36

easier for them to trust what you are

1:57:38

saying and then take action on it. One

1:57:41

more tactic on this because I think it's

1:57:42

really helpful and then the rest I'm

1:57:44

going to leave for you to study in the

1:57:45

playbook is once the film session is

1:57:49

done, 15 to 20 minutes after, I always

1:57:53

would send a message to whoever I filmed

1:57:55

with telling them how great I thought

1:57:58

they did. Now, if it was a rough film

1:58:01

session, I wouldn't lie. What I would

1:58:03

say is, "I am so impressed with how you

1:58:05

showed up and still pushed through

1:58:07

despite this, this, and this." You never

1:58:09

want to your talent because

1:58:11

eventually they pick up on it and they

1:58:12

realize like, okay, a compliment from so

1:58:14

and so never is actually that helpful

1:58:16

because they don't mean anything they

1:58:18

say. So, you want to always be truthful

1:58:20

about it. But the reality is is like if

1:58:22

you've had a really hard day,

1:58:23

like if I got an email from a partner of

1:58:25

ours and it was really bad this morning,

1:58:27

that would throw me off. So maybe it

1:58:30

wouldn't be the best video ever, but

1:58:31

it'd be impressive that I still showed

1:58:33

up and decided to do the action

1:58:34

regardless. So, you always want either

1:58:37

your team or if you're the team watching

1:58:39

this, you want to send your talent a

1:58:41

message telling them how well they did.

1:58:43

And I would encourage you to call out

1:58:45

one or two things they said. This way,

1:58:47

they really actually know you were

1:58:49

paying attention to what they said. It

1:58:50

wasn't just like, "Oh, the lighting was

1:58:51

great and all that." No, no. The content

1:58:54

of what was being said was valuable,

1:58:56

insightful, and useful for myself, and I

1:59:00

know it will be for our greater

1:59:01

audience. This then allows them to go on

1:59:05

to the rest of their day or into their

1:59:06

evening feeling better about what they

1:59:08

made. And what that does is if we

1:59:11

believe brand is how we defined it at

1:59:13

the beginning of this that creates a

1:59:16

intentional pairing between relevant

1:59:18

things them and good content and

1:59:22

eventually they start to associate that.

1:59:24

And so then they start to associate good

1:59:27

feelings, excitement and positivity with

1:59:30

film days. A lot of people really hate

1:59:32

film days and they really see it on

1:59:33

their calendar as like a massive dread.

1:59:35

They know it's necessary, but they don't

1:59:36

want to do it. What you want is an

1:59:38

environment that you look forward to it.

1:59:40

When you see film day on your calendar,

1:59:42

you want to be excited about it because

1:59:44

it's so enjoyable because the

1:59:46

environment is so reinforcing of what

1:59:48

you are doing. The next one is to

1:59:49

systematize repurposing. Now, real

1:59:52

quick, I want to give a big qualifier

1:59:55

here. Repurposing content, like for

1:59:57

example, what we talked about earlier

1:59:58

with the waterfall method. You make a

2:00:00

long form piece of content and then you

2:00:02

clip micro from it. That is a great way

2:00:04

to start. But it is 2025 and we are now

2:00:07

at a point where all the platforms are

2:00:09

fragmented and behave differently. The

2:00:11

best version of content and we'll talk

2:00:12

about this more in a little bit but is

2:00:14

making content contextual to the

2:00:16

platform itself. Making it native for

2:00:19

Tik Tok, for Instagram, for LinkedIn,

2:00:21

for YouTube long form. And sometimes

2:00:24

pulling clips from long form is native,

2:00:27

right? Like a lot of podcast clips do

2:00:29

really well. More podcast clips don't do

2:00:31

well than podcast clips that do. And so

2:00:34

if you want predictive power and you and

2:00:38

you want to be certain that the piece is

2:00:40

going to do well, the best version is

2:00:42

going to be making it contextual to the

2:00:44

platform. However, if you are earlier in

2:00:47

your efforts here, and I'm talking like

2:00:49

first 3 years even, you're probably

2:00:51

going to be doing more repurposing. The

2:00:53

2.0 0 version of this is not just

2:00:56

clipping or extracting short form

2:00:58

content from long form. It's actually

2:01:00

using insights of how content has

2:01:02

performed on one platform in one medium

2:01:05

and using that to inform new mediums for

2:01:09

new platforms. Let me give you an

2:01:10

example. There was a client that I was

2:01:12

working with a couple years ago and she

2:01:14

had a really powerful statement. I I

2:01:18

can't remember off the top of my head

2:01:19

right now. So, uh it was powerful but I

2:01:21

can't quite remember it and I apologize.

2:01:23

She put it out as a tweet. That was it.

2:01:26

We put it out as a tweet and so many

2:01:29

people were responding to it. It was one

2:01:31

of her top performing, like most liked

2:01:33

tweets of all time. So many responses,

2:01:35

so many people sharing that tweet to

2:01:39

their stories and tagging her. And so we

2:01:42

thought we had something here. This is

2:01:44

called social listening. We paid

2:01:46

attention to what the audience was

2:01:47

saying. They were calling this quality.

2:01:49

They're like, "This is quality,

2:01:50

y'all." So what did we do? We tripled,

2:01:53

quadrupled, fiveupled, whatever that

2:01:55

word is down on this. And what we did is

2:01:58

we then created a short and we had her

2:02:01

expand on this statement. We used

2:02:04

literally the tweet as the hook and then

2:02:05

she explained why she came up with that

2:02:08

quote, why she said that, what the story

2:02:10

was, what the scenario she was going

2:02:12

through that inspired that quote. Next,

2:02:15

we actually created a poster of the

2:02:18

quote and we put it up in a very cool,

2:02:20

aesthetically pleasing environment and

2:02:23

we took a photo of it. Like I said

2:02:24

earlier, if you were paying attention,

2:02:26

something that does really well, this is

2:02:27

a tactic, not a principle, but something

2:02:29

that does really well right now is

2:02:31

taking a photo of a real life thing,

2:02:34

whether it's like you're writing on a

2:02:35

post-it note or it's a printed, you

2:02:37

know, quote or whatever, that is doing

2:02:39

really well on social. So what we did is

2:02:41

we printed the quote, took a photo of

2:02:42

it, posted it, and it was one of, if not

2:02:45

her top performing Instagram post of all

2:02:47

time. So then what we did is we turned

2:02:49

it into a longer form hashed out

2:02:52

LinkedIn post. So we took the quote and

2:02:54

we use that as the hook cuz it had been

2:02:56

proven effective on Twitter. It had well

2:02:58

now X, but it was Twitter at the time.

2:03:00

And it had been proven effective on

2:03:03

Instagram, on YouTube shorts, on Tik

2:03:05

Tok. It did well everywhere. So we're

2:03:07

like, cool. We're not going to

2:03:08

around with the hook. We're just going

2:03:09

to keep it the same. So, we did that and

2:03:10

then we had her expand on it, right? We

2:03:13

took a little bit of what she said in

2:03:15

the short form clip and then we had her

2:03:18

add or round it out, add more

2:03:21

commentary, more color commentary to it.

2:03:22

That performed really well. It

2:03:25

was definitely a top three, if not her

2:03:26

top post on LinkedIn. So then, guess

2:03:28

what we did? We used that to inform

2:03:31

making a YouTube long form video on this

2:03:34

entire quote. And so what we did is we

2:03:36

utilized I think we did a version of the

2:03:38

quote as the title. You know, YouTube,

2:03:40

you kind of have to play the youtuby

2:03:42

game. But what we did is we used that

2:03:44

and it informed a long I think it was

2:03:46

like a 25 30 minute video. It was

2:03:49

probably in her top 10. I don't want to

2:03:50

say that it was her top video. It

2:03:51

wasn't, but it was in the top 10. It

2:03:53

performed really well. How

2:03:54

incredible that we started with a tweet

2:03:57

and what started as a tweet developed

2:03:59

into some of the top performing content

2:04:00

for all of her platforms. But did you

2:04:03

notice what we didn't do is just repost

2:04:05

the tweet everywhere. We made that tweet

2:04:08

and remade it contextual to what the

2:04:11

needs of the platforms were at the time.

2:04:14

If you're listening or watching this

2:04:15

right now, please like rewind or I'll

2:04:19

just say it again. Make the content

2:04:21

contextual to the platform. Reverse

2:04:24

engineer what the platform is telling

2:04:26

you it wants and what its users want and

2:04:30

make it in that way. It can be the same

2:04:32

exact message but repackaged

2:04:34

differently. An analogy that I love to

2:04:35

use and I'll probably share it multiple

2:04:37

times throughout this course is you

2:04:39

watching this. You are you. Okay? Wow,

2:04:43

what a what a breakthrough statement.

2:04:44

But you are you. But you show up to

2:04:46

different scenarios and circumstances

2:04:49

differently. Let's say, for example,

2:04:51

you're going and getting brunch with

2:04:52

your family on Saturday. And then

2:04:54

Saturday night, you're going to go out

2:04:55

and meet up with the ladies and go out

2:04:57

for cocktails. And then Monday morning,

2:04:59

you have a business meeting. you. Let's

2:05:01

say your name is Sarah. Sarah is showing

2:05:03

up to all of these different

2:05:06

circumstances, events as Sarah. But the

2:05:09

reality is is Sarah is going to talk

2:05:11

about different topics and speak with a

2:05:14

different tone and probably use

2:05:15

different vocabulary given the different

2:05:17

scenarios. That's not her being

2:05:18

inauthentic. That is her revealing

2:05:20

different parts of herself contextual to

2:05:23

the environment she is in. Knowing her

2:05:25

audience is what she's doing. Well,

2:05:27

social media is the exact same thing.

2:05:29

All the platforms are just these

2:05:31

different events that you're going to.

2:05:33

So you show up as you. Sarah shows up as

2:05:36

Sarah on LinkedIn, Tik Tok, Instagram,

2:05:38

YouTube, Facebook, all of them. But you

2:05:40

reveal different parts of yourself. You

2:05:42

emphasize different parts and you use

2:05:44

different vocabulary because you're in a

2:05:47

different environment. That's what it

2:05:48

looks like to create contextual content

2:05:51

to the platform you're on. And then

2:05:54

lastly, I would encourage you define

2:05:55

your energy rhythm. And this sounds like

2:05:57

so woo woo and blah blah blah, but

2:05:59

really what it is is it's knowing

2:06:01

thyself, okay? It's knowing I perform

2:06:05

best. I have the most amount of energy

2:06:07

and clarity of thought in the morning or

2:06:09

I'm way better late at night. Whatever

2:06:11

is your best time, I would encourage you

2:06:13

to schedule your content creation around

2:06:15

that. For me, I know that probably

2:06:18

around midday, I start to get a little

2:06:20

tired. So, in the morning is my best

2:06:23

midday and then towards the end of the

2:06:25

day I start picking back up. And so I

2:06:27

try to plan accordingly to that. If I

2:06:30

were really good at night and I sucked

2:06:33

in the morning, I was just all groggy

2:06:34

and like clear, I wouldn't film in the

2:06:36

mornings, right? Because not only would

2:06:37

I not enjoy it, it wouldn't perform as

2:06:39

well. And so just look at where you find

2:06:41

your most optimal times, where you feel

2:06:43

most dialed, and schedule your content

2:06:46

sessions around that. And a subpoint to

2:06:49

that is protect your creative and your

2:06:51

content time just like it's an important

2:06:53

business meeting. Something that I've

2:06:54

seen a lot of people do is kind of

2:06:56

depprioritize this and they move their

2:06:57

content day around all the time. And I

2:07:00

understand very important if you're

2:07:02

running a business or you know if you're

2:07:04

an artist and you're meeting with a

2:07:05

potential buyer for your painting or

2:07:07

whatever. Sure, that's very important

2:07:09

and that I would prioritize over your

2:07:11

content creation. But I would tell you

2:07:14

that unless you have a very mature team,

2:07:16

more than likely what will happen over

2:07:18

time is if you continue to reschedule

2:07:20

and push off content days, unless

2:07:22

they're very mature and they've been

2:07:23

around this for a while, they're going

2:07:24

to interpret it like it is not a

2:07:26

priority for you. And if it's not a

2:07:27

priority for you, it's going to become

2:07:29

less of a priority for them. And so the

2:07:31

way that you show up often times will

2:07:33

dictate unfortunately or fortunately

2:07:36

depending on how you look at it, how

2:07:37

your team shows up for you. Hello there.

2:07:40

This is me interrupting this programming

2:07:43

for a very interesting little

2:07:45

advertisement. I just want to let you

2:07:47

know about a email newsletter that we

2:07:50

are putting together. Now, this isn't

2:07:51

going to be your traditional newsletter.

2:07:53

It's not like a weekly or monthly

2:07:54

cadence. We're just going to

2:07:55

occasionally send you dope free

2:07:57

that we think is going to

2:07:59

actually drive massive impact for your

2:08:01

brand and scale your content rapidly.

2:08:03

And so, if that sounds interesting, you

2:08:05

can go to caleb rston.com, enter your

2:08:07

email, and we'll send you some dope

2:08:09

goodies. All right, the next section is

2:08:11

utilizing storytelling in your content.

2:08:14

Now, I don't think this is going to be

2:08:16

any secret to anyone. Storytelling is

2:08:18

incredibly powerful and effective. So

2:08:19

much so that you're seeing one of the

2:08:21

creators who is most known for maybe not

2:08:24

utilizing as much of traditional

2:08:26

storytelling techniques, Mr. Beast, who

2:08:28

has been more like adrenaline go. He is

2:08:32

even implementing far more storytelling

2:08:35

tactics into his content. Especially if

2:08:37

you've watched Beast Games, you You know

2:08:39

exactly what I'm talking about. Stories

2:08:40

aren't just entertaining and engaging.

2:08:43

They also change people's perspectives.

2:08:46

They allow the individual to see maybe a

2:08:49

similar concept or a similar

2:08:50

circumstance that they've been dealing

2:08:52

with from a whole new perspective. But

2:08:56

they also keep people hooked. I mean,

2:08:58

attention is the greatest asset right

2:09:00

now in today's age, right? It's what

2:09:02

everyone is looking for. And

2:09:04

storytelling does keep people hooked. It

2:09:06

does retain attention. Stories also

2:09:08

create an emotional connection between

2:09:10

you and your audience. They allow you to

2:09:12

provide more depth and round out the

2:09:14

concept or principle that you are

2:09:16

sharing. People have a harder time

2:09:18

remembering facts, but what they do

2:09:19

remember is the stories that you tell

2:09:21

them and the new perspective they were

2:09:23

able to gain because of the story. Here

2:09:26

is a storytelling framework that you can

2:09:28

use in your content. But please do not

2:09:31

operate off of this framework like it's

2:09:33

something rigid. It is not written in

2:09:35

concrete. It's not in stone. This is a

2:09:38

guide for you. You now have the rules.

2:09:41

Feel free to break the rules. Like move

2:09:43

things around. Like whatever you find is

2:09:45

working most effectively for you. Please

2:09:48

use this in a fluid way rather than a

2:09:51

rigid way. What we're going to go over

2:09:53

is the hook, the problem, the journey,

2:09:55

the lesson, and then the call to action.

2:09:57

First, the hook. We have to get

2:09:59

attention fast. We are living in a world

2:10:01

where you're competing with everything.

2:10:04

You're competing with all the other

2:10:05

creators, all of their friends, everyone

2:10:07

on social media that is making content.

2:10:09

You're also competing with the

2:10:11

dog that's barking at them. I mean,

2:10:13

there is so much going on in people's

2:10:15

lives that you're competing for their

2:10:17

attention for. And so, you have to get

2:10:20

their attention immediately. Depending

2:10:22

on the platform that you're making

2:10:24

content on, some of them you only have

2:10:25

like a second or two to get that

2:10:27

attention. If we're talking Instagram,

2:10:28

Tik Tok, Facebook reels, YouTube shorts,

2:10:31

LinkedIn video tab, any sort of short

2:10:33

form video, you have about two or three

2:10:35

seconds to get their attention. If you

2:10:37

do not do that, guess what they're

2:10:39

doing? Not consuming the rest cuz

2:10:40

they've already scrolled five posts

2:10:42

further down. Now, for YouTube long

2:10:43

form, what a lot of the industry experts

2:10:46

like to say is that 30 seconds, you have

2:10:48

30 seconds to capture attention. I don't

2:10:50

really agree with that. I think you have

2:10:52

about 15 to 20 seconds max to capture

2:10:54

attention. And really what they're

2:10:55

looking for is like one, is this video

2:10:57

actually what I clicked on, right? The

2:10:59

the packaging, or am I getting, for

2:11:01

those of you that remember back in the

2:11:02

day, the Rick Rald thing, am I getting

2:11:04

Rick rolled, right? Or is this actually

2:11:06

what I'm looking for? Two, is this the

2:11:08

person that I want to listen to telling

2:11:10

me this information? For a strong hook,

2:11:12

I recommend starting with a very bold

2:11:14

statement, potentially a contrarian

2:11:15

view, something that is uh different

2:11:18

that you see differently than your

2:11:20

counterparts or industry experts in your

2:11:23

field. This can also be an unexpected

2:11:25

fact, although I I do think that those

2:11:27

are kind of getting a little tiresome at

2:11:28

this point. But I think that no matter

2:11:30

what, if you say something that most

2:11:33

people believe to be true and you claim

2:11:35

it to be false and give an alternative

2:11:37

take, you're almost always going to

2:11:40

catch people's attention. Here's two

2:11:41

examples for you. Subscribers, views,

2:11:44

likes don't matter. What actually

2:11:46

matters is that is an example of a

2:11:49

contrarian statement. A lot of

2:11:50

counterparts, a lot of the industry

2:11:52

experts within online content creation

2:11:54

would say the opposite of what I just

2:11:56

said there. A lot of them are pushing

2:11:58

for those metrics and that hook would

2:12:01

catch attention because it is different

2:12:03

than what the majority of other content

2:12:06

creators are saying. Thus, it stands

2:12:08

out. Another great example of a good

2:12:10

hook is a pattern interrupt. So, one of

2:12:12

the top performing clips I ever made for

2:12:13

Gary Vaynerchuk was uh the blueberry

2:12:15

clip. And he literally starts it off by

2:12:18

he's like chomping on some blueberries

2:12:21

and he goes, "I eat blueberries like

2:12:23

it's my job." And then the next

2:12:24

thing he says is, "You missed the first

2:12:26

30 I ate." And this was like such a such

2:12:30

a pattern interrupt for a lot of people.

2:12:31

This was one of at the time it was his

2:12:33

most viral clip at that time. And so

2:12:36

basically what you want to do is you

2:12:38

want to either provide a contrarian

2:12:40

point of view, a pattern interrupt. You

2:12:42

want to ask a thoughtprovoking question,

2:12:44

something that is going to be a thumbs

2:12:47

stopper that is going to cause them to

2:12:49

have to watch the rest of the video

2:12:51

because they're so interested. Next, we

2:12:53

have the problem. This is where you're

2:12:54

going to set up the stakes. Here, you're

2:12:56

going to introduce a conflict or some

2:12:58

sort of emotional investment. And this

2:13:00

doesn't have to be a massive conflict or

2:13:03

anything like ultra dramatic or

2:13:04

anything. Essentially, what you want is

2:13:06

some sort of problem or thing that the

2:13:10

main character has to overcome in some

2:13:13

way, shape, or form. Now, ideally, you

2:13:15

want to make the problem specific and

2:13:17

relatable. So, ideally, this is

2:13:19

something that your audience is going to

2:13:21

be like, well, yeah, I've gone through

2:13:22

something similar. They're going to be

2:13:23

able to see themselves in that problem.

2:13:26

They maybe have recently encountered

2:13:28

something very similar. An example might

2:13:29

be, I was working 14 hours a day for my

2:13:32

hero, Gary Vaynerchuk, but I still felt

2:13:35

stuck. This creates stakes. It shows you

2:13:38

how much I care and that I love working

2:13:41

for Gary and that he is my hero, but

2:13:43

that I was in this inner turmoil of

2:13:45

feeling stuck as an example. Next, we

2:13:48

have the journey. This is how we

2:13:49

overcome it, right? In the traditional

2:13:52

like storytelling mantra, this is how

2:13:56

the prince slays the dragon to rescue

2:13:58

the princess. Now, one thing to note is

2:13:59

people resonate with progress, not

2:14:01

perfection. And so, if you're sharing

2:14:03

this journey, I would encourage you to

2:14:06

not just share the highlights. Share the

2:14:09

low lightss, right? The low points where

2:14:11

you've made mistakes. In the example of

2:14:13

I was working 14 hours a day for my hero

2:14:15

Gary Vaynerchuk, but I still felt stuck.

2:14:17

I would then go on to tell the story of

2:14:20

how I got unstuck through a sequence of

2:14:23

victories and losses. Okay? It wouldn't

2:14:26

necessarily just all be roses because

2:14:28

that's not what life is. And people

2:14:30

resonate and connect and relate to your

2:14:33

struggles, I would argue, more than your

2:14:36

successes. And I encourage you, show the

2:14:38

messy middle. Show where you're doubting

2:14:41

yourself, where you're doubting the

2:14:42

opportunity you're in. Maybe you're

2:14:44

building a business right now and you

2:14:46

can share how you're like unsure how

2:14:49

this is going to actually go. Is this

2:14:50

going to build into some big business?

2:14:52

Is it going to be successful? Am I going

2:14:53

to be able to provide for my family? Or

2:14:55

am I going to have to go back and get a

2:14:58

real normal job, a 9 to-5? If you're a

2:15:01

musician, maybe what you end up doing is

2:15:04

you're putting out tracks and you're

2:15:06

trying a new style of music. Maybe

2:15:08

you've traditionally done more rock and

2:15:09

roll and you're entering the country

2:15:11

music world and you're uncertain if that

2:15:13

audience is going to resonate with it. I

2:15:15

think that your audience is going to

2:15:17

resonate more with you explaining why

2:15:20

you're trying this new thing and the

2:15:22

fact that you're not certain of how it's

2:15:23

going to go. I mean, that's what I've

2:15:25

been doing probably throughout this

2:15:26

course. Maybe you've noticed it, but

2:15:27

like there's been times where I'm

2:15:28

indicating I think this is going to be a

2:15:30

powerful project. I think this is going

2:15:32

to affect a lot of people and I think

2:15:33

it'll lead to a lot of good outcomes for

2:15:35

Rston, my consulting firm. But I don't

2:15:37

know. I have no idea. I'm investing a

2:15:40

lot of money, at least for me, and a lot

2:15:42

of time and effort into this, right?

2:15:43

Like, we've been filming all day

2:15:45

yesterday, all day today, and

2:15:47

we'll film again tomorrow. And like, I'm

2:15:49

exhausted. I'm investing a lot into this

2:15:51

and I have no idea if it's going to turn

2:15:53

out. I think it will, but I don't know.

2:15:55

And I think that me sharing that, more

2:15:57

than likely, you resonate with that. At

2:15:59

some point in your life, you have also

2:16:01

too had a moment where you invested a

2:16:03

lot into a project. Maybe it was back in

2:16:05

fifth grade when you were working on

2:16:06

that volcano for science and it was like

2:16:08

you put a lot into it but you didn't

2:16:09

know if it was going to actually erupt

2:16:11

for Mrs. Fields, right? Like I don't

2:16:13

know. So I really truly believe in your

2:16:17

storytelling framework this is the key.

2:16:19

We want to share the transparency. We

2:16:21

want to share these moments. We want the

2:16:23

audience to see themsself through you in

2:16:26

some way. An example of this could be I

2:16:28

realized I was burning out because I was

2:16:30

trying to do everything and that's when

2:16:32

I realized that I could do blank. That

2:16:34

is an example obviously very concise

2:16:35

version of it but that is an example of

2:16:37

giving an insight to the journey a

2:16:40

mistake that I had made. I was trying to

2:16:43

do everything and I realized that I was

2:16:45

burning out. Now for the lesson this is

2:16:48

where you make it useful for your

2:16:50

audience. Every story that you tell is

2:16:52

going to give them a new perspective and

2:16:55

a shift. It's going to open them up to

2:16:58

new possibilities and new realities. So,

2:17:00

this is the moment when you give them

2:17:02

the lesson, the takeaway, the thing that

2:17:05

they can act on. Otherwise, it's just

2:17:07

they're being entertained. You're just

2:17:08

telling a story, and they're like, "Oh,

2:17:09

cool. Great story." If you give them the

2:17:11

lesson, the takeaway, and you make it

2:17:14

easy for them to take action on that by

2:17:16

giving them step-by-step instructions,

2:17:17

chunking it down, making it as easy as

2:17:20

possible for them to change what they

2:17:22

do. Then, what you're doing is you are

2:17:24

providing value to your audience. Cuz

2:17:27

ultimately when people say provide

2:17:28

value, that's all providing value is

2:17:31

something that is useful, something that

2:17:33

the audience can take and immediately

2:17:36

put into action. That is what valuable

2:17:38

content within the education space is.

2:17:41

Now, an example of how I might

2:17:42

transition to this is here's what I

2:17:44

learned from that season of my career

2:17:47

and here are three ways that you can

2:17:49

apply these learnings in your career so

2:17:52

that you avoid the mistakes that I made.

2:17:54

Ideally, what you want to do is tie this

2:17:56

lesson back into what your expertise is

2:17:58

and really ideally back into what your

2:18:00

offer is. Because ultimately, we are

2:18:02

trying to either build our business,

2:18:04

build our craft, build our art, whatever

2:18:07

it is that we are offering the world, we

2:18:09

want to make people aware of that. And

2:18:11

so, every time that we can tie our

2:18:13

lessons, our stories back to that, the

2:18:15

better. And lastly, we have the CTA or

2:18:18

the call to action. Now, immediately

2:18:20

when I say that, 99% of you immediately

2:18:23

thought it was something like, "Now, if

2:18:25

you want to learn more about things like

2:18:26

this, go to my website and buy my offer

2:18:29

or pay for my course or whatever

2:18:31

shit." That's not necessarily the case.

2:18:33

A call to action just literally means

2:18:36

telling people to take action. It

2:18:38

doesn't mean that you have to sell them

2:18:40

something. I would argue that your best

2:18:42

content is not going to be pushing and

2:18:44

selling If anything, the 2.0, 3.0,

2:18:47

4.0 0 version of this once you have

2:18:49

bigger budgets is you just retarget

2:18:51

those individuals who paid. That's a

2:18:52

totally another video. We'll do that one

2:18:54

other day. The call to action can be a

2:18:56

very simple thing of comment below on

2:18:58

what your biggest takeaway was and how

2:19:00

you're going to apply it to your life

2:19:02

moving forward. That can be a very

2:19:04

simple call to action. It drives

2:19:06

engagement. It causes the viewer to

2:19:07

think and actually probably identify

2:19:10

what they are going to actually do and

2:19:12

then increases the likelihood that they

2:19:14

will change their actions. So, an

2:19:16

example of this is if you're struggling

2:19:18

with trying to do everything yourself

2:19:19

and burning out, try delegating and

2:19:22

training your team. Please, what I would

2:19:25

love to hear from you, comment below,

2:19:27

tell me which of these tactics you're

2:19:28

going to use in training your team and

2:19:30

delegating some of the tasks that you

2:19:32

currently have on your plate so that you

2:19:34

no longer are the one trying to do

2:19:35

everything so you don't burn out. Now,

2:19:38

ultimately, what this does is it bridges

2:19:39

the gap between engagement and

2:19:42

viewership and actually taking action.

2:19:44

And that's the ultimate goal of

2:19:46

educational content. Now, we have two

2:19:48

more sections here on story. And then

2:19:50

right after that, I am going to go very

2:19:52

in-depth on what I believe educational

2:19:55

content is, what its purpose is, and how

2:19:57

you should go about making it. But

2:20:00

first, we're going to dive a little bit

2:20:01

deeper into more around storytelling,

2:20:04

which brings us to the best types of

2:20:06

stories to tell. Not all stories work

2:20:08

equally as well in content. The best

2:20:10

ones fall into these categories. The

2:20:12

first one is origin stories. Uh people

2:20:15

love this one. Now, if you start your

2:20:18

journey of making content and you do

2:20:20

this for several years, I promise you,

2:20:22

you're going to get bored of your origin

2:20:23

story and you're going to get to the

2:20:24

point where you start telling your

2:20:25

content team, "Stop cutting that. Stop

2:20:28

including that." Do not do that. You

2:20:30

need to treat your content like you're

2:20:32

always trying to reach a cold audience

2:20:34

because that's what you're trying to do.

2:20:36

And guess what's so unique about a cold

2:20:37

audience? They don't know your

2:20:39

origin story. Origin stories are what

2:20:41

people resonate with, in my opinion, the

2:20:44

most. It's how you got to where you are.

2:20:47

It's the thing that you're going to tell

2:20:49

that is going to be the most relatable

2:20:50

for the audience watching. The thing

2:20:53

that's not relatable is where you're at

2:20:54

right now. Let's say you're a very

2:20:56

successful businesswoman and you've

2:20:57

built a massive business and you have,

2:21:00

you know, your $500 million net worth.

2:21:02

You're huge. You're on the cover of

2:21:04

Forbes, all this crazy That is not

2:21:06

relatable. But how you went from being a

2:21:08

barista at Starbucks, barely making ends

2:21:11

meet, all the way to that point, that is

2:21:13

what we, the audience, are going to

2:21:15

resonate with. So really, please lean

2:21:18

into your origin story. This tells the

2:21:21

audience why you are doing what you're

2:21:23

doing. Okay? This gives us the

2:21:26

understanding, right? This is the Peter

2:21:28

Parker getting bit by the spider. This

2:21:31

is Batman encountering the terrible

2:21:33

situation with his parents. This also

2:21:35

gives insight to pivotal moments that

2:21:37

shaped your career and shaped who you

2:21:40

are as a person. We are a collective of

2:21:42

everything that has happened in our life

2:21:44

up to this point. And if you don't share

2:21:46

that with your audience, they're not

2:21:47

going to truly understand why you do

2:21:49

what you do, why you say things the way

2:21:51

you say them, why you act the way you

2:21:53

act. So this is me right now committing

2:21:55

to you guys. I am going to continue to

2:21:57

dive deeper and deeper over the next

2:22:00

year into my origin story, into why I

2:22:02

operate and think the way that I think.

2:22:04

For example, we talked about how we

2:22:06

shape the environment for filming. There

2:22:09

are a lot of things that occurred in my

2:22:11

life leading up to working on set that

2:22:15

allowed me to have a completely

2:22:17

different perspective and insight into

2:22:19

how to make talent feel comfortable.

2:22:21

Another example is the first video that

2:22:22

we put out on YouTube talking about my

2:22:24

career journey, right? I literally tell

2:22:27

you in that video how at 15 years old,

2:22:29

Sean Kel gave me the book Crush It by

2:22:31

Gary Vaynerchuk. I read it and forever

2:22:34

changed how I viewed my career. I all of

2:22:36

a sudden realized I could do video

2:22:38

content. And so it gives you insight to

2:22:40

so many different things. why I chose

2:22:42

this career path, how I've navigated it,

2:22:44

why I've overemphasized social media

2:22:46

even at the time when the majority of

2:22:48

marketers and my counterparts were

2:22:50

talking about how it was a fad. You also

2:22:52

gain insight on probably why I

2:22:53

referenced Gary so much throughout this

2:22:55

course in a lot of different speeches

2:22:56

and podcasts that I do because Gary has

2:22:59

had such a huge impact on my life. But

2:23:01

if you didn't know the fact that I read

2:23:03

his book when I was 15 years old in

2:23:05

high school and decided to

2:23:07

completely change the trajectory and

2:23:09

course of my life, you'd be like, "Wow,

2:23:10

this guy references Gary a lot. It's

2:23:12

kind of interesting. It's kind of weird.

2:23:14

Why does he like Gary so much?" And this

2:23:16

gives insight as to why. The next one

2:23:19

that people really relate to is failure

2:23:21

stories. I think most humans have one

2:23:24

thing in common, which is we fail. By

2:23:26

telling failure stories, what you do is

2:23:28

you become relatable to your audience

2:23:30

and you build more trust with them.

2:23:32

People trust vulnerability more than

2:23:35

they trust success. They trust failure

2:23:38

more than they trust wins. If you do

2:23:40

tell these stories, don't only talk

2:23:42

about what went wrong. Don't make it

2:23:44

just a sob story. You hopefully gained

2:23:47

lessons and insights from that failure,

2:23:50

from that loss, from those mistakes. And

2:23:52

what you can do is not only did you

2:23:55

learn from it, but you can help others

2:23:56

learn from it and avoid having to make

2:23:58

the investment of time, money, whatever

2:24:01

that you did and lost in your mistake.

2:24:04

And so ultimately you are servicing your

2:24:06

audience or providing value, usefulness,

2:24:10

so that they can then make different

2:24:12

decisions and avoid that pitfall

2:24:14

altogether. For example, referencing the

2:24:16

career video again because at the time

2:24:18

of recording this, it's the only video

2:24:19

that I've put out on YouTube. I share

2:24:21

the story of how I thought I was a hot

2:24:24

shot, big shot. I signed two I502 legal

2:24:27

cannabis companies in Washington state

2:24:30

and I had tripled my income and I was

2:24:32

like, I was the big man. I was hot

2:24:36

And then that same client cut my monthly

2:24:38

compensation in half and I had to go

2:24:40

fire three friends that I had hired.

2:24:43

Again, Mr. big shot immediately brought

2:24:46

down to low very very disappointed

2:24:51

little Caleb. It was brutal. And I

2:24:53

shared that story. But not only did I

2:24:55

share the story, I shared what I learned

2:24:57

and how I will never make that mistake

2:24:59

again. And what I tried to do is

2:25:01

articulate in a very clear way how you,

2:25:04

the viewer, can avoid the same mistake

2:25:06

in your craft, in your career, in your

2:25:09

business. Now, as much as I think

2:25:11

sharing the losses and the failure

2:25:12

stories are very important, it's also

2:25:14

extremely important to emphasize your

2:25:17

success stories. Otherwise, people will

2:25:18

just think that you are a failure

2:25:20

constantly learning. And that's not what

2:25:22

we want. We want to actually create the

2:25:25

association between you and the success

2:25:27

that you have had. More on that in a

2:25:29

little bit. But what you want to do is

2:25:30

show before and after transformations.

2:25:32

Okay? So ideally, these success stories

2:25:35

end up being the proof that validates

2:25:38

that you are the right person to be

2:25:40

listening to on this subject matter. And

2:25:42

when you validate that you are the right

2:25:44

person to listen to on the subject

2:25:45

matter, what you're doing is increasing

2:25:47

trust in the viewer. And if you increase

2:25:50

trust in the viewer, a lot of magical

2:25:52

things happen. And if you start to

2:25:54

highlight small wins that became big

2:25:56

results, this starts to build on your

2:25:59

credibility. For example, I like to

2:26:02

reference as often as possible how I

2:26:04

worked with Gary to grow his Tik Tok

2:26:06

from 300,000 followers to 3.5 million in

2:26:10

just 3 months. And by doing this, I am

2:26:13

providing you with credibility or proof

2:26:16

that what I'm about to say is valid

2:26:19

because I have had success in this

2:26:21

realm. Another one is customer and

2:26:23

client success. This is more proof that

2:26:25

not only can you execute something for

2:26:27

yourself, but you can do it for others.

2:26:29

you can replicate this success. And if

2:26:32

you can replicate this success, then why

2:26:35

would you, the viewer, not believe that

2:26:37

you could do the same thing? This is

2:26:38

another moment where you get to let the

2:26:40

audience see themselves in your content.

2:26:43

Ideally, they see themselves in your

2:26:45

success story and then they go and take

2:26:48

action and get that same success. An

2:26:50

example would be I met with an agency

2:26:52

owner about 2 years ago. They were

2:26:54

asking me, "How do I get more out of my

2:26:55

editors? How do I get them to be better

2:26:58

and up to speed?" And I shared with him

2:27:00

a very very simple tactic and it comes

2:27:02

from the principle of let them know what

2:27:04

you like so they do more of it. And what

2:27:06

I told him is I said instead of only

2:27:09

leaving comments on frame of all the

2:27:11

things that you want your editor to do

2:27:13

differently, spend at least the same

2:27:15

amount of time leaving comments on

2:27:17

reinforcing what you want them to

2:27:19

continue doing. Because editors, if you

2:27:21

only get notes on what you should

2:27:23

change, well, you don't know if the

2:27:25

client liked what you did on, you know,

2:27:28

minute 1313. And so then they have to

2:27:30

spend energy on the next edit wondering,

2:27:32

should I continue doing subtitles that

2:27:34

way? Should I still do transitions in

2:27:36

the same way? They don't know. And they

2:27:38

have to expend effort in guessing what

2:27:40

you liked. So call it what you like

2:27:42

equally, if not more than what you want

2:27:44

changed. And he texted me about a year

2:27:47

after that and told me it was the

2:27:49

greatest insight that he had ever heard

2:27:51

in training a team. And his output and

2:27:54

quality, and by quality, I mean the

2:27:56

performance of the content increased and

2:27:58

went better for his clients. And his

2:28:00

client retention increased because one

2:28:03

of the common problems that a lot of

2:28:04

agencies experience is high client churn

2:28:07

due to poor editors. Well, this changed

2:28:10

how he trained his editors and it

2:28:12

changed his agency forever. There's an

2:28:14

example of me sharing a client success

2:28:16

story. The final one that I'm going to

2:28:17

share with you is industry stories. Now,

2:28:19

I like to take a contrarian view to this

2:28:21

because what you don't want to do is

2:28:22

just be another person that's agreeing

2:28:24

with everybody else and regurgitating

2:28:26

all the same So, if you have the

2:28:28

same opinion as other people, ah, I

2:28:30

mean, yeah, sure, make the content, put

2:28:31

your opinion out there, but I don't

2:28:32

think that you're going to find that is

2:28:34

as effective at catching attention and

2:28:37

sparking conversation. And so what I

2:28:39

would encourage you to do is look at

2:28:40

what the people in your industry are

2:28:42

talking about. And when you have a

2:28:44

differing opinion, put it out

2:28:46

respectfully, of course. Don't be

2:28:47

talking and naming names and stuff,

2:28:49

but share the industry trope that

2:28:50

everybody touts as gospel. And then

2:28:53

share your contrary belief or your view

2:28:56

on it. An example here is maybe you call

2:28:59

out the fact that a lot of people are

2:29:01

encouraging content creators to make

2:29:03

heavy calls to action for their offer in

2:29:07

their organic content. And maybe you

2:29:08

believe differently like I do. Maybe you

2:29:10

start the video off by saying never tell

2:29:12

your audience about your

2:29:14

offer in your organic content. And then

2:29:17

you expand on it. This is going to take

2:29:19

a very typical trope that a lot of

2:29:21

people are touting in my industry and

2:29:24

flip it on its head. It's going to catch

2:29:26

attention and provide a slightly unique

2:29:28

perspective that most people have not

2:29:31

heard. Now, this next section is purely

2:29:34

about educational content. So, for

2:29:36

anybody who is making entertainment,

2:29:37

this might not be as useful. But for

2:29:39

those of you who are making educational

2:29:41

content, this is going to be possibly

2:29:43

the most critical next few minutes of

2:29:46

this entire course. This is the purpose

2:29:48

of educational content. If you and I

2:29:51

agree on the same definition of branding

2:29:54

and brand. Branding is the pairing of

2:29:57

things. And good branding is an

2:30:00

intentional pairing of relevant things

2:30:02

consistently which then creates the

2:30:04

byproduct which is brand which is when

2:30:07

the audience inherently associates the

2:30:09

two things. Then cool, we're on the same

2:30:10

page. And what I'm about to describe

2:30:12

will make a lot of sense. In educational

2:30:15

content, what you want to do is you want

2:30:18

to share success stories. What ends up

2:30:21

happening when you intentionally pair

2:30:24

yourself with the relevant thing,

2:30:25

success stories, you and success

2:30:27

stories, is over time the audience

2:30:31

begins to associate you with success.

2:30:35

Now, what happens there is not the magic

2:30:38

sauce, okay? That's not the epic

2:30:40

because what that causes is trust. trust

2:30:43

in what you say. So that's amazing, but

2:30:45

that's not the final byproduct that

2:30:47

we're looking for. When they trust what

2:30:48

you have to say, now they start to hear

2:30:53

the lessons and takeaways that you

2:30:56

share. When they trust those lessons and

2:30:59

takeaways that you share, they then

2:31:02

start to take

2:31:03

action. This is when the gold starts.

2:31:07

When they start taking action, they

2:31:09

start to get the results that they want.

2:31:12

They get their desired outcome. They see

2:31:15

that success that they were hearing

2:31:17

about in your client stories for

2:31:20

themsel. When this happens consistently,

2:31:23

what begins to happen is the audience

2:31:25

doesn't associate you with success

2:31:28

stories. The audience begins to

2:31:30

associate you with their success. This

2:31:33

is powerful because what ends up

2:31:35

happening is they realize whether it's

2:31:39

conscious or subconscious that they

2:31:42

always get more than what they invest

2:31:47

with you because all they had to do was

2:31:51

invest their time to consume and then

2:31:54

their time to take action. Now,

2:31:56

sometimes you're going to be telling

2:31:57

them something that's going to also cost

2:32:00

money. Maybe it's running paid ads. So

2:32:01

yeah, they have to invest money in it.

2:32:03

But I guarantee if they get the success

2:32:05

outcome, it is greater than the

2:32:07

investment they made. And so what you're

2:32:09

doing is you are teaching your audience

2:32:12

that what they invest with you always

2:32:15

leads to greater outcomes. And this is

2:32:18

the brand that you start to build with

2:32:20

your audience. And guess what happens

2:32:23

all of a sudden? When you make your

2:32:25

audience aware of the offer you have,

2:32:27

they believe, they trust that what they

2:32:31

will invest in this offer is very little

2:32:35

in comparison to what they're going to

2:32:37

get as the outcome. I can't tell you how

2:32:40

many different people I've worked with

2:32:41

where we have done this at scale. There

2:32:43

was one company that I worked with and

2:32:45

we were putting out a lot of educational

2:32:47

content, specifically long- form content

2:32:50

on LinkedIn and YouTube. This company

2:32:52

started conducting in-person seminars. I

2:32:55

remember I would every once in a while

2:32:56

try to attend them and and bounce around

2:32:58

and mingle with the guests. And the

2:33:00

question that I would always ask them

2:33:02

is, "Hey, what what was the the

2:33:04

conversation with the salesperson like?

2:33:06

What was the point of sale like?" And

2:33:08

they would almost all say the exact same

2:33:11

thing. I literally told the salesperson,

2:33:13

"Shut the up and take my credit

2:33:14

card." Because through the free content

2:33:17

you put out, I knew that whatever you're

2:33:20

going to charge for was worth far more

2:33:23

than what I had invested. So if I'm

2:33:25

paying $1,000 to go to the seminar, I

2:33:27

know I'm going to get at a minimum

2:33:29

$10,000 worth of value. But actually,

2:33:31

the way that we created content, they

2:33:33

were getting like 50 to 100x the value

2:33:36

of their investment. Ultimately,

2:33:38

educational content is just scaling

2:33:41

trust. And when you scale trust, doors

2:33:43

that you could never imagine fleeing

2:33:45

wide open for you. Opportunities start

2:33:48

knocking at your door like you could

2:33:50

never imagine. People come into your

2:33:52

life that you never would have thought

2:33:54

would have any interest in you. And the

2:33:57

profit that you are able to make on your

2:33:59

offer or for your company goes through

2:34:02

the roof. Again, educational content, I

2:34:06

believe, is ultimately just scaling

2:34:08

trust. and trust makes everything in

2:34:12

business and life easier. Now, we're on

2:34:15

to having your community drive your

2:34:18

content. I would encourage you, please

2:34:21

involve your audience in what you are

2:34:23

creating. I'm going to give you an

2:34:24

immediate example of this actually that

2:34:26

happened literally last night. We're

2:34:27

here filming this content and uh an

2:34:29

individual who is here that works at

2:34:31

this studio, he also makes music. And we

2:34:35

were talking about just different ways

2:34:37

to involve and get more engagement from

2:34:40

his audience. And one of the things that

2:34:42

we were talking about is a lot of

2:34:44

musicians, they have, you know, multiple

2:34:46

different versions of a verse for a

2:34:48

track, as an example, that they're

2:34:50

working on. Or they might have a guitar

2:34:51

lick that they're working on, and they

2:34:53

have a couple of different ideas or

2:34:54

versions that they're working on. This

2:34:55

applies, by the way, to like filmmakers,

2:34:57

to authors, like literally any medium

2:34:59

that you're making. And I told him,

2:35:00

well, a very simple way to engage your

2:35:02

audience and to get them to feel very

2:35:04

bought in to this single or an album,

2:35:07

but let's call it a single for now that

2:35:09

you're releasing is to upload maybe to

2:35:12

your Instagram or whatever platform you

2:35:14

prefer, the two different options. So,

2:35:16

let's say you have two different

2:35:18

versions of a verse that you're going to

2:35:19

run in a track that you're releasing.

2:35:21

You upload both of them and you allow

2:35:24

your audience to tell you which one they

2:35:27

like the most. Guess what? They're going

2:35:29

to be invested. How cool, right?

2:35:32

And if you're an author, you can do the

2:35:33

same thing. You might have two different

2:35:34

versions of a chapter. Sure. You might

2:35:36

have two different versions of the title

2:35:38

of the book. There's so many different

2:35:40

things that you can do here. But if you

2:35:42

involve your audience, one, you're

2:35:45

making content or you're making

2:35:47

something that you know they're going to

2:35:49

want because they have told you they

2:35:50

want it. But also, they are so much more

2:35:53

bought in. They're going to be your

2:35:55

advocates. They're going to go out and

2:35:57

be your missionaries telling other

2:36:00

people about what you produced because

2:36:03

they were part of the process. The

2:36:04

mindset shift here is shifting from

2:36:06

creator first to community first. If you

2:36:10

make everything about them and serving

2:36:12

them and bringing them into your world,

2:36:14

bringing them into your content

2:36:16

creation, it's a totally different

2:36:18

ballgame. It's no longer just a one-way

2:36:20

talking at them. It's talking with them.

2:36:23

Next is you want to create a feedback

2:36:25

loop or feedback loops. This is where

2:36:27

you listen and adapt. Listen and

2:36:29

iterate. This is where the magic is.

2:36:32

This is when literally people think that

2:36:35

you're reading their mind. I

2:36:36

believe the best content ideas actually

2:36:38

come directly from your audience because

2:36:40

you're making content to serve your

2:36:42

audience. Let them indicate to you what

2:36:45

they want more of. Now, I do not

2:36:47

necessarily believe that what this looks

2:36:49

like is posting a poll being like, "What

2:36:50

do you want to hear from me?" I like

2:36:52

that for like Q&A format, but I actually

2:36:54

don't think that that is the best way

2:36:56

because they don't know what they want.

2:36:57

Let's just be honest. They they don't

2:36:59

know what they need. But what they do is

2:37:02

they will send you DMs or they'll

2:37:04

comment questions. That's where you want

2:37:07

to see the insights. So I I find when

2:37:09

people make polls asking their audience,

2:37:12

what should I make next? I'm not nearly

2:37:15

as much of a fan of that. I think that

2:37:16

that is way too blue ocean and doesn't

2:37:19

provide any sort of constraints for them

2:37:20

to make the decision within. However,

2:37:23

the questions in your DMs, the questions

2:37:26

in your comment section, that is insight

2:37:28

on what your community is wanting more

2:37:31

of from you. An incredible example of

2:37:33

this, like I kind of said at the top of

2:37:34

this section, is Gary spends an

2:37:37

incredible amount of his time doing what

2:37:40

we refer to as social listening. He is

2:37:43

looking at tweet replies. He is looking

2:37:45

at Instagram DMs. He is looking at

2:37:47

comments on his content and he is taking

2:37:50

all of that in and synthesizing it. What

2:37:53

he does is he starts to notice that

2:37:55

maybe five people today asked him the

2:37:58

same question or a very similar version

2:38:00

of a question. And what Gary does so

2:38:02

well is he immediately acts on that and

2:38:04

creates content answering that question.

2:38:07

Now what he doesn't do is say, "Man, so

2:38:10

many people have been asking me about

2:38:11

blank." He immediately jumps into it and

2:38:12

addresses the problem or question that

2:38:14

he is receiving from his audience. And

2:38:16

then this crazy thing happens. People

2:38:18

comment on his post being like, "How did

2:38:20

you know I needed this right now, Gary?

2:38:22

You're somehow reading my mind." And

2:38:23

it's almost like he is reading their

2:38:25

mind because what he's doing is

2:38:26

recognizing if five people in the last 3

2:38:29

hours ask me a very similar question,

2:38:31

there are thousands of people that for

2:38:34

whatever reason, whatever woo woo magic

2:38:36

in the universe, they're experiencing

2:38:38

that right now. And they need that

2:38:40

insight right now. And so if you do

2:38:42

this, if you pay attention to what your

2:38:44

community is saying and the feedback

2:38:46

they're giving you, you can be making

2:38:48

content that is literally speaking to

2:38:51

them in their exact moment right now,

2:38:54

aka reading their mind. Another thing

2:38:57

that you can do is you can make your

2:38:58

audience the hero of the story. By doing

2:39:01

this, you encourage them to want to take

2:39:03

action on what you're sharing, get the

2:39:05

success, and then become one of those

2:39:07

success stories. So what this looks like

2:39:08

is sharing community wins,

2:39:10

transformations, and case studies. If

2:39:12

you have a weekly call that you do on

2:39:15

Zoom for free for people in your

2:39:18

audience and you're telling them or

2:39:21

sharing information with them or sharing

2:39:23

some new direction or something that

2:39:24

they can do and they take action on it

2:39:26

and it changes their life, you should be

2:39:28

sharing that on social. Don't just

2:39:31

keep it for the community. share that

2:39:32

publicly because what that will do is

2:39:35

one, it will incentivize current members

2:39:38

of your community to take action and win

2:39:41

so that maybe they can be a success

2:39:43

story, but two, it will cause people who

2:39:46

are on the outside that are a little bit

2:39:47

more skeptical to be less skeptical and

2:39:50

trust you more. An incredible example of

2:39:53

this is if you receive a DM from

2:39:56

somebody in your community, somebody

2:39:57

that's in your audience, and they've

2:39:59

gained success. they tried something,

2:40:01

they put into action something that you

2:40:03

told them, a lesson, a takeaway, and

2:40:05

they got the result that they were

2:40:06

looking for. What you could do is you

2:40:08

could turn that into content. Maybe what

2:40:09

you do is you do a an Instagram video

2:40:12

call with them, record it, and then you

2:40:14

put that piece of content out there.

2:40:16

Now, no, this is not going to be your

2:40:17

top performing content by any means.

2:40:19

Anything like this, you're not going to

2:40:21

see massive engagement on. You're not

2:40:23

going to see a ton of views, likes, or

2:40:24

anything like that. But what you will

2:40:26

see is it will encourage future people

2:40:29

to engage with your content and send you

2:40:32

their success stories, how they have won

2:40:35

based on what you have shared. And

2:40:38

lastly, leverage user generated content.

2:40:42

UC is kind of the acronym that almost

2:40:45

everybody in the industry uses and so

2:40:47

that's probably what you're more

2:40:48

familiar with. I would encourage your

2:40:50

audience to create with you. And so what

2:40:52

this can look like is potentially you

2:40:54

put out a prompt encouraging your

2:40:56

audience to share an insight or story

2:40:58

based on the lessons and advice that you

2:41:01

share in your content. Then what you do

2:41:03

is you take those videos that they have

2:41:05

posted. Maybe it's to Tik Tok, Instagram

2:41:07

reels, and you can stitch them. You can

2:41:09

actually create content off the back of

2:41:12

your audience's content that they are

2:41:13

already creating. What this will do is

2:41:15

create a perpetual cycle of engagement.

2:41:18

This empowers your audience to want to

2:41:20

one create content with you, but also to

2:41:24

promote you to their audience. And no

2:41:26

audience is too small. Like even people

2:41:28

that have 300 followers, I want them

2:41:30

informing their 300 followers about my

2:41:33

brand. Now, I believe that there are

2:41:35

three pillars to community content. And

2:41:38

my hope is in sharing this, this just

2:41:40

allows you to come up with more ideas

2:41:43

within these three different pillars.

2:41:45

First one is educational content. This

2:41:47

is when we're teaching our community. We

2:41:49

help the community by solving their

2:41:51

biggest problems. The next one is

2:41:53

conversational content. The goal or

2:41:55

purpose of this is to engage the

2:41:56

audience. You want to make your audience

2:41:58

feel heard and involved in your content.

2:42:00

Again, we don't want this to just be a

2:42:02

one-way relationship. We want it to go

2:42:04

both ways. And number three, social

2:42:06

proof content. This is where, like we

2:42:08

talked about earlier, you can showcase

2:42:10

community wins as an example. You want

2:42:12

to be highlighting real stories from

2:42:14

your community and how what you're

2:42:16

putting out there is driving impact in

2:42:18

your community. So, we've gone over the

2:42:20

value of building a community and having

2:42:23

the community drive your content, but

2:42:26

how do you turn viewers into community

2:42:28

members? Well, first off, you're going

2:42:29

to want to make engagement the goal, not

2:42:31

just views. So, the way you do that is

2:42:33

you create content that invites them to

2:42:36

participate. This might be as simple as

2:42:38

literally just asking your community to

2:42:40

drop a fire emoji in the comments if

2:42:42

they found this clip useful. This could

2:42:45

also go so far as to literally ask them

2:42:47

to debate in the comments. So, what you

2:42:50

could do is you could share a

2:42:51

controversial take on something. Again,

2:42:53

not controversy for controversial sake,

2:42:55

but something that is counter what the

2:42:58

industry norm is. You could share that

2:43:01

and then your call to action could be

2:43:03

literally telling your audience, debate

2:43:05

whether or not you agree with this in

2:43:06

the comments below. Or you could go even

2:43:08

crazier and say, "I would love to know

2:43:11

your two cents on this. I'm going to be

2:43:13

engaging with some of you and going back

2:43:15

and forth. We can debate it in the

2:43:17

comments." Drive engagement in your

2:43:20

content. And second, please respond and

2:43:23

reward participation. People ask me,

2:43:26

"How do I increase engagement in my

2:43:28

content?" The number one thing that I

2:43:31

notice for most of the people that ask

2:43:33

this question is the three people that

2:43:36

are currently commenting on their

2:43:37

content, they're not responding to. So

2:43:40

like why on earth would you think more

2:43:42

people are going to start engaging with

2:43:43

your content if you're not even

2:43:44

responding to the ones who are? What you

2:43:46

want to do is set an example for future

2:43:48

people, future audience members,

2:43:50

somebody who's new that comes in. If

2:43:52

they see that you are more likely to

2:43:54

respond to comments, they are more

2:43:56

likely to comment. Go figure. People

2:43:58

don't like one-way conversations. They

2:44:00

love when creators, even big creators

2:44:03

especially, are responding to their

2:44:05

comments. What you're doing is you're

2:44:06

not only acknowledging the people that

2:44:07

are engaging and thanking them for that,

2:44:09

but again, you're giving signals to

2:44:11

other audience members that they can go

2:44:13

from becoming a viewer to an actual

2:44:17

community member. And the last one, I'm

2:44:19

I'm a huge fan of this. I love to create

2:44:21

inside jokes and shared language. I

2:44:24

believe that really strong communities

2:44:26

have very unique terminology and shared

2:44:28

language that they all understand and

2:44:30

outsiders do not. Think of any niche,

2:44:33

any interest that you have. Deep within

2:44:35

that community exists a lot of different

2:44:37

sayings that maybe your friends and

2:44:39

family do not understand. For example,

2:44:42

gym bros have bulking season and the

2:44:44

Harley community has all their jokes

2:44:46

about sportster riders. So, when you're

2:44:48

thinking about your community and your

2:44:50

niche, what's the inside joke? Whether

2:44:52

it's leveraging one that already exists

2:44:54

and implementing it in your content so

2:44:57

that you show people that you are an

2:44:59

insider, you get the inside jokes, you

2:45:01

understand the lingo, you speak their

2:45:03

language, or it might be creating your

2:45:06

own. There's so many different creators

2:45:08

who have their own little sayings that

2:45:10

people outside of the community don't

2:45:11

understand. The takeaway is either

2:45:13

leverage inside jokes and statements and

2:45:16

language that you know already exists

2:45:17

within your community and niche or

2:45:20

create your own. And now we've reached

2:45:21

the point in the course where we are

2:45:22

going to talk about scaling your

2:45:24

content. We've established how to pick

2:45:26

your medium, how to pick your preferred

2:45:29

platforms, everything, right? We've

2:45:31

given you a lot of different frameworks

2:45:33

and you've been consistently posting.

2:45:35

You're involving your audience. You're

2:45:36

doing all the right things. And now

2:45:38

we're at the point where we want to

2:45:39

scale the out of this thing, right?

2:45:41

We want to amplify your brand at a whole

2:45:43

another level. More content equals more

2:45:45

opportunities to engage, more

2:45:47

opportunities to attract, and more

2:45:49

opportunities to convert. But here's the

2:45:52

thing, scaling does not need to equate

2:45:54

to burning out or quitting early, right?

2:45:57

We want to build a process and system

2:46:00

that is sustainable and works for you.

2:46:02

Now, the key to making platform specific

2:46:04

content is actually recalling something

2:46:06

that I shared with you earlier, which is

2:46:08

the analogy of you are you and you show

2:46:11

up to multiple different circumstances,

2:46:13

events, situations as you, but you're

2:46:16

going to present yourself slightly

2:46:18

different given the context or the

2:46:20

environment that you are in. You're

2:46:22

going to speak to different topics or

2:46:24

use different vocabulary. Let's say I'm

2:46:26

going out to go riding with the boys,

2:46:28

right? I am going to talk in a slightly

2:46:31

different way than when I go and get

2:46:33

breakfast with my mom. I am still me,

2:46:37

but I'm going to emphasize different

2:46:39

parts of me and use different vocabulary

2:46:40

that is appropriate for the setting that

2:46:42

I am in. I view social media and the

2:46:46

different platforms the same way. You

2:46:48

are your brand, but you're going to show

2:46:50

up and emphasize different parts or

2:46:52

elements of your brand given the

2:46:53

platform you're on. You're also going to

2:46:55

use different lingo and language. you're

2:46:57

going to talk way differently on

2:46:59

LinkedIn than you are on Tik Tok. Now,

2:47:01

what you've probably been doing up to

2:47:03

this point is making content and then

2:47:06

deploying it to all the platforms. So,

2:47:09

let's say, for example, you made a

2:47:10

YouTube long- form video. You're

2:47:12

probably mining and pulling shorts from

2:47:14

that and then posting those shorts on

2:47:16

all the different platforms. And that

2:47:18

was a great start. That caused you to be

2:47:20

able to scale your brand to a certain

2:47:21

point. But right now, you're probably

2:47:23

hitting a ceiling. And the way to smash

2:47:25

through that ceiling is to now start

2:47:29

making those same clips but have a

2:47:32

different creator tackle it given their

2:47:35

knowledge and context on the platform

2:47:37

they're distributing it to. So what does

2:47:39

this look like? Well, one, it looks

2:47:41

massively inefficient because what

2:47:43

you're going to do is you're going to

2:47:44

provide the same source media to maybe

2:47:47

five different editors and they're all

2:47:49

going to cut it slightly differently to

2:47:52

make it contextual to Tik Tok versus

2:47:54

Instagram versus LinkedIn video because

2:47:56

all three of those platforms might

2:47:58

require a completely different hook.

2:48:00

Now, what you might find is that the

2:48:02

meat of the video stays roughly the

2:48:04

same, but the entry point into the meat

2:48:06

of the video, the hook might be

2:48:08

different because people are looking for

2:48:10

different things or solving different

2:48:12

problems on LinkedIn versus Tik Tok.

2:48:14

Just because you've been doing it one

2:48:15

way doesn't mean that that is how you

2:48:17

continue. Often times, the way you got

2:48:19

to one point is not the way you're going

2:48:20

to get to the next point. And so the

2:48:22

solution here is to take your team and

2:48:25

the creators that you have on your team

2:48:27

and reverse engineer their specific

2:48:29

skill sets and interests and assign them

2:48:32

the platform that lines up with their

2:48:34

strengths and interests. Cuz what you

2:48:36

want is you want them to be living,

2:48:38

eating, and breathing this platform. I

2:48:40

remember when Gary assigned TikTok to me

2:48:42

and we were at 300,000 followers and

2:48:44

literally what he had me do is the first

2:48:46

week I didn't make any content for it. I

2:48:49

sat eight hours a day for a whole week

2:48:52

straight just scrolling through Tik Tok.

2:48:54

That is like doom scrolling on another

2:48:56

level except I was actually

2:48:58

taking note and learning what people

2:49:01

were doing on the platform that worked.

2:49:03

And what I was trying to do is extract

2:49:04

the insights that could be applied to

2:49:07

Gary's content. So at the beginning of

2:49:08

this section, what we did is we outlined

2:49:12

prioritizing two or three platforms. But

2:49:14

now we're probably at the point where,

2:49:16

yeah, you still are prioritizing, let's

2:49:17

say, those three platforms, but you're

2:49:19

probably redistributing the content on

2:49:21

another three. So, what you're going to

2:49:22

do is you're going to take your top

2:49:24

three platforms and your bottom three

2:49:26

platforms, and you're going to assign

2:49:28

those out to your team cuz more than

2:49:30

likely, you don't have like 10 people on

2:49:31

your team. You might have three editors

2:49:33

that you can assign to these platforms.

2:49:35

So, what you do is you give your best

2:49:37

editor, your number one platform, and

2:49:40

your number four platform, and so on and

2:49:43

so forth. Your second best editor gets

2:49:44

platform number two and platform number

2:49:47

five. Okay? And then again, the third

2:49:50

gets number three and number six. And so

2:49:53

what we're going to do is we're going to

2:49:54

tell them to spend 85% of their time,

2:49:57

effort, and energy making platform

2:50:00

native content for their top priority

2:50:02

platform. And then they're going to

2:50:04

spend the remaining 15% trying to

2:50:06

experiment with platform native content

2:50:08

for their second priority platform.

2:50:11

Notice that is a huge discrepancy. 85%

2:50:13

and 15%. Because we have identified that

2:50:16

these three platforms, your top three,

2:50:18

are what are actually driving the

2:50:20

economics of your business. They're

2:50:22

driving awareness to your art. They're

2:50:24

driving awareness to your offer. And so

2:50:26

that is where we're going to put all of

2:50:28

our effort. So here's an example of how

2:50:30

this is actually ran. Let's say Angela

2:50:33

is our best editor. Okay? So we assign

2:50:35

Instagram to Angela. Angela is going to

2:50:38

spend 85% of her time during the week

2:50:41

creating Instagram native content. She's

2:50:45

literally making content specifically

2:50:47

and only with Instagram in mind. Now,

2:50:49

could this be redistributed to other

2:50:51

platforms? Of course, absolutely. But

2:50:53

you want her thinking through the

2:50:55

mindset of the Instagram audience that

2:50:57

you have. And then she's going to spend

2:50:59

the remaining 15%. Let's say Tik Tok we

2:51:02

identify as number four. Okay, cool. 15%

2:51:04

of her time is going towards making

2:51:07

platform native content for Tik Tok.

2:51:08

What this probably will end up looking

2:51:10

like is maybe creating seven original

2:51:13

pieces of content for Instagram a week

2:51:14

and maybe one or two for Tik Tok. And

2:51:16

that's fine. Again, what we're doing is

2:51:18

we're taking the Eye of Sauron approach

2:51:19

that I mentioned earlier and we're

2:51:20

delegating that out to the team now. So,

2:51:23

it's not just you or the head of your

2:51:25

content team doing that. You're actually

2:51:27

giving the power to your individual

2:51:29

contributors on the team to do the same.

2:51:32

They're prioritizing the platform that

2:51:34

drives the most results and then they

2:51:36

are testing and around with the

2:51:39

secondary platform because as we know

2:51:41

social evolves, things change and we

2:51:43

never know if Tik Tok is all of a sudden

2:51:45

going to jump in priority. On one of the

2:51:47

teams that I built, we had gotten to a

2:51:49

point where we had already optimized

2:51:51

quite a bit on the platforms. But when

2:51:53

we made this change, an already massive

2:51:57

massive output team that was getting

2:51:59

billions of impressions every year, we

2:52:02

were able to see a 1.5x return. Now,

2:52:05

that might not sound like that special.

2:52:07

Everyone talks about 2x, 10xing,

2:52:09

100xing, but what you got to realize is

2:52:11

when you are at the top. 0.1% of content

2:52:15

creators, a 1.5x increase is

2:52:18

massive. A great analogy for this, if

2:52:20

you know uh powerlifting in any way,

2:52:22

shape, or form, when you are early in

2:52:24

the days and you first start lifting,

2:52:26

you can be doubling your lifts every

2:52:28

couple of months, but then once you get

2:52:29

to a point where you're like maybe

2:52:31

squatting 6 or 700 lb, uh you're not

2:52:35

going to be doubling that, right? If you

2:52:37

get a 5% increase in your lift, that

2:52:40

might be the difference between a

2:52:42

standard lift and a world record. Now,

2:52:43

why is this actually effective? I think

2:52:45

I've given a fairly good argument for

2:52:46

it. But in case you're still on the edge

2:52:49

and still don't totally feel like you've

2:52:52

been convinced, here's a couple reasons.

2:52:54

This allows for each of your creators to

2:52:56

have more focus. Instead of spreading

2:52:58

them thin and having them make what I

2:53:00

would call vanilla content, something

2:53:02

that you're making and hoping will work

2:53:04

on all the platforms, they don't give a

2:53:06

about the other platforms. They are

2:53:08

focusing the majority of their efforts

2:53:10

on one primary platform. And what is so

2:53:13

beautiful about this is not only do they

2:53:16

learn what the audience wants, they

2:53:19

become very closely tied to the actual

2:53:22

performance of the content. When you're

2:53:24

a shorts editor and you make a clip, it

2:53:26

is very difficult to continue making

2:53:29

clips and track the performance of that

2:53:31

short across five to 10 different

2:53:33

platforms. But if you own one channel,

2:53:36

you actually are able to keep way better

2:53:39

track of the performance and the

2:53:40

creators end up being held more

2:53:42

accountable. They understand how the

2:53:44

clip is actually performing. This is the

2:53:46

beautiful marriage of creative and data.

2:53:48

And what you want is you actually

2:53:51

traditional creative has data and

2:53:54

strategy in a completely different house

2:53:56

than creative. That is like the

2:53:57

traditional agency model. What you want

2:53:59

is you want them to be as close as

2:54:01

possible. the further they are away, the

2:54:04

less that the data is actually informing

2:54:06

the creative and then we're just making

2:54:07

subjective calls rather than informing

2:54:09

our decisions off of what the audience

2:54:11

has told us they want more of. Another

2:54:14

reason why this works is this will

2:54:16

actually lead to greater retention with

2:54:18

your team. Why? Because they're starting

2:54:21

to see greater success with their

2:54:23

content. It's a very powerful

2:54:25

reinforcement loop. They make the

2:54:26

content, they see how it performs, it

2:54:28

does better. Amazing. They take the

2:54:30

insights from that and that informs the

2:54:32

next creative they make and it creates

2:54:34

this incredible flywheel that is

2:54:36

unstoppable. The other thing that this

2:54:37

will end up doing is it actually

2:54:39

incentivizes your audience to follow you

2:54:41

on multiple platforms because you're not

2:54:43

posting the same at the

2:54:45

same time. You're actually posting

2:54:46

different content at different times.

2:54:48

And so if I look at your brand on

2:54:51

Instagram and then 5 minutes later go to

2:54:53

LinkedIn and your post is at the top,

2:54:55

it's not the same Anytime that

2:54:57

you're posting the same content at the

2:54:59

same time to all the different

2:55:00

platforms, you deincentivize your

2:55:02

audience to follow you on all these

2:55:04

platforms. Why would they do it? They

2:55:05

they have no reason to. I just need to

2:55:07

follow you on Instagram and I'll get

2:55:09

everything that you put out. Versus, if

2:55:11

you're making individual content per

2:55:13

platform, well, then I am very

2:55:16

incentivized to follow you everywhere

2:55:17

because I'm going to gain different

2:55:19

insights and different perspectives

2:55:21

depending on what platform I'm on. The

2:55:22

other added benefit is you create a team

2:55:24

of strategists, not just creatives. They

2:55:27

start to learn how to think

2:55:28

strategically. And what you're actually

2:55:30

doing is you're training future leaders

2:55:32

of your team. A lot of editors are maybe

2:55:34

a little bit more on the meek side and

2:55:36

not as willing to share strong opinions

2:55:39

because maybe they don't feel they have

2:55:41

the data to back it up. Well, this puts

2:55:43

the data in their front lap.

2:55:45

This makes it so available for them and

2:55:48

they start thinking differently. And

2:55:49

what you'll find is two, three, couple

2:55:52

of individuals on your team are going to

2:55:54

rise above and shine. And you're going

2:55:56

to see that they have more skills than

2:55:59

just being a creator. And what you might

2:56:01

find is that this individual is able to

2:56:04

be in a leadership role on your team in

2:56:06

the future. This provides them the

2:56:09

opportunity to see that that is a

2:56:11

potential for their career. Whereas

2:56:12

before, they may have always thought

2:56:14

they were an editor. I can't even tell

2:56:16

you how many different editors that I've

2:56:18

led that once we did this, they were

2:56:20

like, "Oh my goodness, I always thought

2:56:22

I was just going to be an editor." And

2:56:23

now I see like maybe I want to be a a

2:56:25

strategy lead or I want to be a creative

2:56:27

director. And it opens up this whole

2:56:29

other opportunity, which is amazing for

2:56:31

them and provides value to them and

2:56:33

their career, but it also is extremely

2:56:35

valuable to you because what you want as

2:56:37

you scale is to have leaders that

2:56:39

understand your brand and ideally have

2:56:41

been there for a long time, right?

2:56:43

Consistency is a powerful thing with

2:56:46

your team. Now, the next question you

2:56:48

might be wondering is, okay, how do I

2:56:50

determine who gets what platform? How do

2:56:52

I evaluate the creators on my team and

2:56:55

what platform they should own? A very

2:56:57

basic version of this is just look at

2:57:00

how they operate and how they

2:57:01

communicate. Does the creator match the

2:57:04

tone of the platform? For example, on

2:57:06

Tik Tok, do they understand current

2:57:08

humor and current trends that are

2:57:11

existing? Right? Tik Tok for more than I

2:57:13

think any other platform has like their

2:57:15

own language that they speak. Maybe this

2:57:17

is me being a millennial and just

2:57:20

getting old now and maybe it's not just

2:57:22

Tik Tok, but you want somebody who

2:57:24

understands that and is up todate with

2:57:26

culture and what people are saying so

2:57:28

that they can participate in a way that

2:57:31

is relevant to the users on that

2:57:33

platform. Another example is LinkedIn.

2:57:35

Do they have a deep understanding of the

2:57:36

subject matter that you are speaking to?

2:57:38

oftentimes you're going to want somebody

2:57:40

specifically on this platform that

2:57:42

actually understands the message and the

2:57:44

content that you are putting out. If

2:57:46

they are just repurposing what you put

2:57:48

out from other platforms, that's decent.

2:57:50

But if they actually have a deep

2:57:52

understanding, they're going to pull

2:57:54

more out of you that is what the

2:57:55

audience on that platform is actually

2:57:57

seeking. And for YouTube, honestly, my

2:58:01

measurement on YouTube is does somebody

2:58:03

consume a shitload of YouTube content? I

2:58:06

truly believe that if they're living on

2:58:08

YouTube, they love and are deeply

2:58:11

following a couple of different

2:58:12

YouTubers. They're going to understand

2:58:13

the best practices and what is working,

2:58:17

but also they're going to see the

2:58:19

evolutions that are occurring in real

2:58:21

time and be able to take those learnings

2:58:23

and apply it to the content you're

2:58:25

making. What you don't want is somebody

2:58:26

who only consumes Netflix and Instagram

2:58:29

editing your YouTube content. You want

2:58:31

somebody who is deep in the weeds of the

2:58:34

YouTube community and understands what

2:58:36

people are doing there and what the

2:58:38

audience is preferring. For example, you

2:58:41

want an editor who is noticing that

2:58:44

vlogs are having a sudden resurgence

2:58:47

over the last year. There's more people

2:58:48

making vlog content. Now, those vlogs

2:58:51

look very different than they did about

2:58:52

5 or 6 years ago. And so you want

2:58:54

somebody who's noticing that emerging

2:58:56

trend and can act on it without using

2:59:00

their preconceived notions or what used

2:59:03

to work in 2014 or 2015 when vlogging

2:59:06

was really big. You want them to

2:59:07

understand the nuance and the difference

2:59:09

between what a 2015 vlog looked like and

2:59:11

a 2025 vlog on YouTube looks like. So

2:59:14

we've evaluated the creators for the

2:59:16

platform. Amazing. Now, what we need to

2:59:18

do is make sure that we have a great

2:59:21

data tracking system in place so that

2:59:24

the creators can know if what they're

2:59:26

making is working or if it's not. And

2:59:29

even more than that, so that you can

2:59:31

know if what they're making is working

2:59:33

or not. Something that I've observed

2:59:35

with a lot of different teams is that we

2:59:37

say things like, "This video got 400k

2:59:39

views," or "This video got 10,000

2:59:42

likes." and people celebrate, but we

2:59:45

don't really know what that means.

2:59:47

Because what we don't know is what the

2:59:49

average is and how this is either

2:59:51

underperforming from the average or

2:59:53

overperforming from the average. In the

2:59:55

very beginning, when it's a small,

2:59:56

nimble team, everyone knows what the

2:59:57

averages are, okay? And so, everyone

2:59:59

knows like, wo, if we got 100,000 views

3:00:01

on this, that's crazy. That's way more

3:00:02

than we normally get. But eventually you

3:00:04

get to a point where you're putting out

3:00:05

so much and you have so many

3:00:07

different platforms and you have

3:00:08

multiple different creators that you no

3:00:10

longer really know what your team means

3:00:13

or what people on your team mean when

3:00:16

they're saying we got 100k views. And so

3:00:18

what we want to establish is benchmarks

3:00:21

and then we want to report against those

3:00:23

benchmarks. And so the way I like to do

3:00:25

this is I like to create what we call a

3:00:28

multiplier sheet. I am not a software

3:00:30

developer, so I haven't put together

3:00:32

some like software tool for this, but we

3:00:34

do this in Google Sheets. And it's very

3:00:36

simple. In the beginning, what you're

3:00:38

going to get is what I like to call

3:00:40

directionally correct, not

3:00:41

scientifically accurate, but again, it's

3:00:44

directionally correct. It's going to

3:00:45

move us in the right direction. What

3:00:47

you're going to do is you're going to

3:00:49

review the last 75 to 90 days of your

3:00:53

content. And this is per platform. So,

3:00:55

let's pick Instagram, for example.

3:00:57

You're going to go back and review the

3:00:58

last 75 days of content on your

3:01:01

Instagram channel and I want you to pull

3:01:03

the median. Okay? So, we're going for

3:01:06

averages. Use the median, not the mean.

3:01:08

Some teams can do and get away with the

3:01:10

mean, but a lot of you probably have

3:01:12

some posts that are massive outliers and

3:01:15

this will tip the scales and make all of

3:01:16

your content look like it's

3:01:17

underperforming and not allow you to

3:01:20

have a proper benchmark to establish or

3:01:23

grade yourself against. And so what

3:01:25

you're going to do is you're going to

3:01:26

grab the median of the last 75 days. And

3:01:30

I would encourage you to do this for

3:01:32

different formats, right? So do this for

3:01:33

reals, do this for carousels, you can do

3:01:36

this for uh static posts if you do that.

3:01:39

You could do it as as an average across

3:01:41

all of it, but it gets way more

3:01:43

scientific if you break it down

3:01:44

according to the medium that you're

3:01:46

tracking. And so what you're going to do

3:01:47

is you're going to establish what that

3:01:48

median is for the last 75 days. That is

3:01:51

now your benchmark. Moving forward,

3:01:54

you're going to report performance of

3:01:57

individual pieces against that benchmark

3:02:00

using a multiplier. So, let's say, for

3:02:02

example, your average is 100,000 views

3:02:06

on Instagram reels. After you have

3:02:08

established that, your first post up

3:02:11

gets 150,000 views. That would be a 1.5x

3:02:15

multiplier. What this does is it gets

3:02:17

the entire team on the same page. We're

3:02:20

all speaking the same language. we're

3:02:22

seeing it from the same handbook.

3:02:24

Instead of saying, "Oh, this got 150,000

3:02:26

views." No, it's this was a 1.5x. This

3:02:28

was a great clip. It did really well.

3:02:30

The benefit of this is you track this

3:02:32

over time and you start to see what

3:02:35

topics, what formats don't perform as

3:02:38

well. It becomes very clear, like

3:02:40

unbelievably clear for you to see. And

3:02:42

what you can have your team do is start

3:02:44

focusing on making more of the that

3:02:46

works and less of the that doesn't.

3:02:49

Now, a technical note for you is I would

3:02:51

recommend for most platforms waiting 11

3:02:55

days after you post it before you report

3:02:58

on the performance. Sometimes what

3:03:00

you'll find is uh a piece of content

3:03:02

might, you know, do decent for the first

3:03:04

2 or 3 days, but then eventually it

3:03:05

actually pops. Something that's

3:03:07

happening a lot more on social is

3:03:09

content does well for a few days and

3:03:11

then maybe like 7 days in it'll pop. And

3:03:13

so you want to give it enough time to

3:03:16

experience the life cycle of the

3:03:18

platform. The other beauty of this is if

3:03:21

you share these sheets across the team,

3:03:23

the person who is running your Tik Tok

3:03:25

can start to see things that are

3:03:28

performing really well on Instagram.

3:03:30

Let's say you have a 3x clip that went

3:03:34

up on Instagram. I think that would be

3:03:35

very interesting for the person who's

3:03:37

running Tik Tok to test it on Tik Tok.

3:03:39

And what you can start to do is

3:03:41

calibrate the crossover performance

3:03:44

between platforms because again this

3:03:47

makes it far easier for you to know what

3:03:49

success looks like rather than saying

3:03:51

well this clip got 150k views on

3:03:53

Instagram and it did really well and

3:03:55

then we posted it on Tik Tok and it only

3:03:57

got 50K. Well maybe your average on Tik

3:03:59

Tok is 10,000 views in which case it was

3:04:01

a 5x multiplier. And so when we use the

3:04:04

same nomenclature, the same language, we

3:04:07

are all on the same page and we can

3:04:09

start to make more educated decisions.

3:04:11

Now, what I said at the top is that this

3:04:13

isn't scientifically accurate. It's more

3:04:14

directionally correct. And the reason

3:04:16

why is because you just pulled the last

3:04:18

75 days and some of those posts have

3:04:20

been up for 75 days. And so it's not the

3:04:23

same amount of time that you're

3:04:25

reporting on. So what you're going to

3:04:26

find is it's going to take a little bit

3:04:28

of time to establish a scientific

3:04:31

benchmark. Use it though. This will help

3:04:33

you go in the right direction. What you

3:04:35

should be doing is every month, make

3:04:38

sure that you update what your benchmark

3:04:40

is. This way, you're always measuring

3:04:42

against the new median rather than a

3:04:45

median that may have happened 6 months

3:04:47

ago. This allows you to continue raising

3:04:49

the bar and instead of you artificially

3:04:51

coming in and saying, "All right, the

3:04:53

new benchmark is we have to hit 500k

3:04:55

views all the time." No, your benchmark

3:04:56

is moving up according to how your

3:04:59

content is performing. And one thing to

3:05:01

call out is uh I wouldn't recommend

3:05:03

doing this for YouTube necessarily

3:05:04

because there are actually tools out

3:05:06

there that already do this. There's one

3:05:08

of 10.com, there's view stats, and I'm

3:05:10

sure there's millions of others that

3:05:11

will pop up over the next couple of

3:05:13

months. But as of right now, I am not

3:05:14

aware of any tool that does this

3:05:16

automatically for your Instagram, Tik

3:05:18

Tok, etc. So, typically what you'll find

3:05:21

is you have to do it manually for short

3:05:22

form platforms and then your YouTube you

3:05:24

can utilize these tools that do it

3:05:26

automatically for you. It's an extremely

3:05:29

extremely powerful tool. And on the

3:05:31

topic of data, I would recommend that

3:05:33

you make this part of the culture of

3:05:35

your team. You want to ensure that

3:05:37

everybody is viewing data as their god.

3:05:41

This is how they make decisions. This is

3:05:42

the framework that they operate under.

3:05:44

It's not us coming up with subjective

3:05:46

creative ideas. I would allow, as a side

3:05:48

note, a little bit of room for that,

3:05:50

right? like maybe 10% of your content is

3:05:52

just new ideas that the team is coming

3:05:54

up with, but 90% of it should be backed

3:05:56

by data. And so I would emphasize in

3:05:59

your hiring process to ensure that you

3:06:02

are bringing people onto the team that

3:06:04

actually place an emphasis on data. And

3:06:08

you can take this even a step further by

3:06:10

actually hiring somebody who maybe not

3:06:12

their full-time job, but a main part of

3:06:14

their job and a main part of their

3:06:16

experience coming into the job is

3:06:18

tracking, analyzing, and then

3:06:20

disseminating the information and the

3:06:22

takeaways they acquire from reviewing

3:06:25

the data. I remember uh on my last team,

3:06:27

there was an individual that we brought

3:06:29

onto the team and he completely changed

3:06:32

how he viewed data. I I'm talking it was

3:06:35

a complete game changer. all of a sudden

3:06:37

everybody on the team started actually

3:06:39

carrying and tracking the data of the

3:06:41

platform they were owning. And so the

3:06:43

moment he came in, we had a huge shift

3:06:45

in the culture. So I would highly

3:06:47

recommend if you currently have a team

3:06:48

and nobody on your team is a data nerd,

3:06:51

that's what you want. Go for the data

3:06:53

nerd. They are going to accelerate the

3:06:56

rate at which you grow and scale your

3:06:59

content. A little pro tip for you is

3:07:01

it's not a boulder that builds a

3:07:03

building. It's brick by brick. And so I

3:07:06

would encourage you to make a list of

3:07:08

the bricks that you have noticed lead to

3:07:13

better content outcomes. And what you

3:07:15

can end up doing is having a massive

3:07:17

internal playbook that is specific to

3:07:20

your content and your team. Your brickby

3:07:23

brick list won't necessarily look the

3:07:25

same as any other teams. So, as much as

3:07:27

I would love to say download our

3:07:29

brick-by- brick list, it's actually far

3:07:31

more contextual to the type of content,

3:07:34

the niche you're in, and the platforms

3:07:36

you're choosing to deploy your content

3:07:38

on. But I would really encourage you

3:07:40

instead of just being like, "Oh, that's

3:07:42

cool." and hoping that you remember it,

3:07:44

actually build a list of your bricks

3:07:46

with your team. And then this becomes a

3:07:49

training tool when you onboard new

3:07:51

editors to maintain that level of

3:07:53

excellence and level of performance. And

3:07:56

you know what? it. Let's throw in

3:07:57

one more pro tip because I think this is

3:07:59

really powerful. Something I learned in

3:08:00

the last two years that was a real

3:08:02

gamecher for me is if it doesn't change

3:08:06

your actions, don't track it. The amount

3:08:09

of teams that I've met with that have

3:08:10

these massive analytic tools that are

3:08:13

tracking every single kind of metric you

3:08:15

could imagine. I mean, there's

3:08:16

so many of those, right? I mean, that's

3:08:18

pretty much every team. You probably

3:08:20

have somebody on your team that has some

3:08:21

sort of crazy analytics tool that

3:08:23

they're tracking every single little

3:08:24

metric that you can imagine. But here's

3:08:26

the thing. How much of that is actually

3:08:28

going to change what the team does? And

3:08:30

if it doesn't change what the team does,

3:08:32

why are we tracking it? What benefit

3:08:34

does it have? If anything, what it does

3:08:37

is it gives information overload and

3:08:39

makes it much more difficult to know

3:08:41

what decisions to make off of the data

3:08:44

because you don't know what you're

3:08:45

looking at. you have a million different

3:08:47

things that you're tracking rather than

3:08:48

tracking two to four metrics that

3:08:50

actually indicate what you should do

3:08:52

next. And the next one, and this is

3:08:54

going to sound a little aggressive, but

3:08:55

I I like to say some things uh that are

3:08:57

a little bit more polarizing every once

3:08:58

in a while. the social media

3:09:00

manager. We don't need that. The people

3:09:02

that you just assigned those platforms

3:09:04

to should be the ones that are managing

3:09:06

the platform. They're doing the posting.

3:09:08

They're going to gain far more insights.

3:09:10

They're going to be tied to the data

3:09:11

like we've talked about and they're

3:09:12

going to understand in real time how the

3:09:15

content they're creating is performing.

3:09:17

Now, a couple of different little pro

3:09:19

tips for you on how you can go about

3:09:21

making your content in an efficient

3:09:23

manner that allows you to do this for a

3:09:26

long time. Cuz like we've talked about

3:09:27

throughout this course, this is only

3:09:30

effective if we stick with it. Build a

3:09:33

content machine. Okay? Instead of

3:09:36

hustling your way to success, build a

3:09:38

system and process that allows you to

3:09:40

put out content consistently and

3:09:42

continue to provide value to your

3:09:45

audience rather than being kind of an

3:09:47

inconsistent spotty creator. First thing

3:09:49

that I recommend doing is batching and

3:09:50

scheduling. If you are a very busy

3:09:53

individual, I recommend actually

3:09:55

batching your content. Now, I do believe

3:09:57

that there is a lot of power into real

3:10:00

time content. You have the idea and

3:10:02

within 24 hours you film it. But for

3:10:04

some of you, actually probably a lot of

3:10:05

you watching this, that's not realistic

3:10:07

with where you're at in your career, in

3:10:09

your business, in your endeavors. And so

3:10:11

what you need to do is you need to give

3:10:12

yourself the system that is realistic

3:10:14

for you in this current season. And more

3:10:16

than likely, that looks like blocking

3:10:18

off a Thursday or Friday, the whole day

3:10:21

to film. This is where you need to go

3:10:23

back to the section where I talk about

3:10:25

creating a conducive environment to

3:10:26

extract the best content. Because if

3:10:28

you're going to take a whole day to

3:10:30

batch content, I will tell you cuz I am

3:10:32

doing it right now, it's exhausting. And

3:10:34

so you need the right environment to be

3:10:37

able to continue and roll with the

3:10:38

momentum so that you can make high value

3:10:42

and useful content. Next, what I want

3:10:44

you to do is create a content assembly

3:10:46

line. Step one is ideation. This is when

3:10:48

you are researching and brainstorming

3:10:50

the topics that you are going to create

3:10:52

your content around. Step two is the

3:10:54

creation. This is when you're drafting

3:10:56

the script. you're hitting record and

3:10:58

you're filming it. Step three is

3:11:00

editing. Now, this is where, as we've

3:11:02

discussed, you are optimizing the edit

3:11:04

per platform that you're distributing.

3:11:06

So again, those top three platforms that

3:11:08

you're prioritizing, those individuals

3:11:11

are each editing that content for their

3:11:14

platform. Step four is distribution.

3:11:16

This is when you post and ideally

3:11:19

engage. Again, the individuals who are

3:11:22

managing those platforms and creating

3:11:23

for it, they're the ones who are posting

3:11:25

it on that platform. Now you have to

3:11:28

figure out whether you want your team to

3:11:29

engage on your behalf or you engage

3:11:32

yourself. I would encourage you highly

3:11:35

it should be you. I think there's a

3:11:36

massive amount of value for me as an

3:11:38

audience member knowing that if I

3:11:39

comment on your post and you respond,

3:11:41

it's actually you. And I would actually

3:11:43

prefer you do that at the detriment of

3:11:44

high volume engagement. So maybe that

3:11:46

means that you only respond to five

3:11:48

comments a week. That's a little bit

3:11:49

extreme, but maybe it's only five. Well,

3:11:52

I think that is a higher value if it is

3:11:55

always you responding to the comments

3:11:57

rather than your team responding to

3:11:58

every single comment on your post. A

3:12:00

tiny little hack around this that I will

3:12:02

recommend that you can do is you can

3:12:04

have your team make a team account. For

3:12:06

Gary Vaynerchuk, we did this with a team

3:12:08

Gary Vee account and this was very

3:12:10

effective. Many times if he was

3:12:12

extremely busy or we were posting and

3:12:14

then he was going to hop on an

3:12:15

international flight where he wouldn't

3:12:16

have Wi-Fi. Okay. Well, he would tell

3:12:19

the team, "Go in under the Team Gary

3:12:21

account and I want you to respond to

3:12:22

every single comment." Sometimes he

3:12:24

would literally have us do every single

3:12:25

comment. And as you may be aware, he

3:12:27

gets thousands of comments. So, it was

3:12:28

very extensive. But this was a very

3:12:30

effective way to do it. The audience

3:12:32

knew that this was his team and there

3:12:34

was no funny business. There was no bait

3:12:37

and switch where we were pretending to

3:12:39

be Gary. No, we were just very clearly

3:12:41

his team engaging with the audience. And

3:12:43

then finally, step five is analyze. This

3:12:46

is where you're reviewing the

3:12:47

performance and you're taking note of

3:12:49

what you can do to improve it in the

3:12:52

future. The next section is create room

3:12:54

for experimentation. The biggest mistake

3:12:56

that I see in content teams, they stop

3:12:59

experimenting. It actually happens

3:13:00

pretty slowly. At first, you're

3:13:02

innovating. You're creating new content

3:13:04

and breaking through ceilings and making

3:13:06

stuff the industry has never seen. But

3:13:08

what ends up happening is you start

3:13:10

learning what works and you double down

3:13:12

on that, which is right. But then

3:13:14

complacency and comfort sets in. The

3:13:17

problem is the algorithm doesn't get

3:13:19

comfortable and it doesn't get

3:13:20

complacent. It's always shifting. Now,

3:13:23

am I encouraging you to constantly try

3:13:25

and chase the algorithm? No. But the

3:13:28

reality is is that your content is going

3:13:30

to be served in a different way whenever

3:13:32

they make a change. And so, you have to

3:13:35

adapt to that change. What got you to

3:13:38

where you are now will not get you to

3:13:40

the next level. The unfortunate reality

3:13:41

is is usually by the time that a team

3:13:44

realizes this, it's almost too late.

3:13:46

They have built a culture of doubling

3:13:49

down only on what they're doing and

3:13:51

never trying new And often times,

3:13:54

as much as I've been pushing databacked

3:13:56

ideiation and databacked content, a lot

3:14:00

of times true innovation has no data to

3:14:03

back it. So what is the solution to

3:14:05

overcome this hurdle and this huge

3:14:07

problem that I see in many different

3:14:09

teams? You need to bake experimentation

3:14:12

into your process. This needs to be an

3:14:14

intentional thing that you actually

3:14:17

systematize and allow your team to do on

3:14:20

a fairly consistent basis. What I like

3:14:22

to do is I like to encourage my teams to

3:14:26

drive innovation through what I call

3:14:28

content hackathons. Honestly, most teams

3:14:31

aren't failing because of bad ideas.

3:14:33

They're failing because they don't have

3:14:35

any new ideas. And this is why I

3:14:37

recommend either a monthly or quarterly

3:14:40

content hackathon. Here's how I run

3:14:43

them. Either a monthly cadence or a

3:14:45

quarterly cadence. You're going to

3:14:46

dedicate an entire day to experimenting

3:14:50

and for the team to make something

3:14:52

completely new and completely different

3:14:55

than what they do in their day-to-day.

3:14:57

So, it starts at 9:00 a.m. And what

3:14:58

you're going to do is you're going to do

3:14:59

a kickoff call. It's usually 15 to 30

3:15:02

minutes. It doesn't need to be anything

3:15:03

fancy or long. What you're doing is

3:15:05

you're giving context to the team

3:15:06

because maybe you're scaling and you

3:15:08

have new members on the team this

3:15:10

quarter than last quarter. And so you

3:15:11

need to make sure that everybody is on

3:15:13

the same page. And what you're going to

3:15:14

do is you are going to give them a safe

3:15:17

space to try anything. What I would

3:15:19

literally do is I would say I don't care

3:15:21

how anything you make today performs. I

3:15:24

want you to create something that you've

3:15:26

not done before on the team. Something

3:15:28

that is not part of your dayto-day. And

3:15:31

typically, I would advise people to only

3:15:33

make one or two pieces of content. I'm

3:15:35

not going for high volume here. We're

3:15:37

going for something completely

3:15:38

disruptive and so different, so

3:15:41

off-the-wall, that it's either going to

3:15:43

absolutely crush or completely flop. And

3:15:45

either way is fine because that is what

3:15:48

you are incentivizing. Innovation, not

3:15:50

performance. And a little fun thing that

3:15:52

I like to do, too, is I like to send

3:15:54

everybody on the team gift cards to pay

3:15:55

for their lunch. If we're all in the

3:15:57

same place, cool. I'll order lunch for

3:15:59

everybody. And the reason why is I just

3:16:00

don't want them to have to think about

3:16:02

that. I want them focusing on this

3:16:04

innovative content they're making all

3:16:06

day. And so what we do is we do the

3:16:07

kickoff call and then they all go and

3:16:09

start ripping away at their content. And

3:16:11

typically what I like to do is give them

3:16:13

basically from 9:00 a.m. to 400 p.m. to

3:16:16

create. And what I do is I put together

3:16:18

a slide deck where they all have access

3:16:22

edit access and they are supposed to on

3:16:25

their slide upload their content.

3:16:27

They're going to present it to the

3:16:29

entire team at the end of the day. So 4

3:16:31

PM hits and usually I'll give them a 15

3:16:34

or 30 minute window to upload their

3:16:35

content and embed it into the slide. At

3:16:37

4:30, we're going to have a 1 hour or 1

3:16:40

and 1/2 hour call with the entire team

3:16:43

where each individual is going to

3:16:45

present what they made. Now I don't want

3:16:47

them to just click play on their video.

3:16:49

I want them to explain why they did what

3:16:52

they did. And then what happens is after

3:16:54

we've reviewed everybody's content,

3:16:56

instead of having the incentive be the

3:16:59

performance of the content, have the

3:17:01

incentive be the amount of innovation

3:17:03

that occurred. And the best way to

3:17:06

measure that is the team. They all know

3:17:08

what you are making on a daily basis.

3:17:11

And so what I like to do is have the

3:17:12

team vote on who won, who made the most

3:17:15

creative or innovative or completely

3:17:18

off-the-wall piece of content that we

3:17:20

should then run publicly. And I like to

3:17:22

give a prize for it. So like often times

3:17:25

I'll do like an Amazon gift card or or

3:17:27

something of that nature that rewards

3:17:30

them for pushing the envelope. Some of

3:17:33

the best content formats that ended up

3:17:34

being top performers for months or even

3:17:37

years for us came from content

3:17:40

hackathons. I can't recommend this

3:17:42

enough. It is amazing. Not only is it

3:17:45

really effective, the team loves it.

3:17:46

It's an entire day where they get to try

3:17:48

new and there's no consequence to

3:17:50

them making something that doesn't

3:17:51

perform well. What you're actually doing

3:17:53

is creating an environment for freedom,

3:17:55

innovation, and creativity to flourish.

3:17:58

Now, content hackathons are great, but I

3:18:00

want to give you a framework that you

3:18:03

can actually utilize for ongoing

3:18:05

experimentation that will empower your

3:18:07

team to not only make what they know

3:18:10

works, but also spend a little bit of

3:18:12

time innovating and trying new Cuz

3:18:14

ultimately, not every single piece of

3:18:15

content should be an experiment. But if

3:18:17

you never test new things, you will

3:18:19

certainly plateau. So, this is the

3:18:21

702010 framework. 70% of your content

3:18:24

you want to be proven that you know

3:18:27

works. This is the bread and butter.

3:18:29

This is what you know consistently you

3:18:30

can put out and will perform well and

3:18:32

your audience will resonate with it.

3:18:34

This is the content that reliably drives

3:18:37

engagement and conversions. Now 20% is

3:18:41

small improvements and iterations to the

3:18:44

content you know works. This looks like

3:18:47

minor tweaks to content that is already

3:18:50

hitting with your audience. This looks

3:18:52

like maybe adjusting the hooks, trying a

3:18:54

new call to action, or testing a new

3:18:56

format with the same subject matter. And

3:18:59

lastly, 10% should be saved for pure

3:19:01

experimentation. This is where the

3:19:03

breakthroughs actually happen. It looks

3:19:05

like trying completely new formats, new

3:19:07

topics or messaging, or completely

3:19:09

different creative approaches to how you

3:19:11

make the content. The unfortunate

3:19:13

reality is most teams get stuck on the

3:19:14

70%. And I understand why. It's

3:19:16

comfortable, but comfort doesn't build

3:19:19

iconic brands. The best teams out there

3:19:23

always ensure that they have at least

3:19:25

one foot in the 10% zone. To wrap this

3:19:28

up, innovation isn't optional. It's a

3:19:31

requirement to scale. Trends will shift,

3:19:34

platforms will evolve, and audiences are

3:19:37

going to move on. If you're not creating

3:19:40

space for experimentation, you're

3:19:42

setting your team up to be in reaction

3:19:44

mode rather than leading the pack.

3:19:46

Because the teams that adapt first are

3:19:48

the teams that win. And the last thing

3:19:51

that I want to leave you with on this

3:19:52

section is the scaling mindset. So many

3:19:56

people quit too early. Mainly because

3:19:58

they didn't have a good process and

3:20:01

framework in place that allowed them to

3:20:03

do this ongoing and enjoy it. So they

3:20:06

quit early. The people who win in the

3:20:09

content game are the ones who stay

3:20:11

consistent and stick with it for a very

3:20:13

very long time. Also scaling is about

3:20:16

iteration not perfection. This is

3:20:18

observing, learning, and adapting over

3:20:21

time. Progress over perfection. And

3:20:24

lastly, let the audience determine what

3:20:27

is great. And the more you post, the

3:20:30

more data you get on what your audience

3:20:32

says is

3:20:35

great. All right, so we've covered

3:20:38

brand, we've covered content, and now we

3:20:40

are on to team. And I would argue this

3:20:43

is actually one of the most important

3:20:45

parts of the whole puzzle. And

3:20:47

personally, it is probably my favorite

3:20:49

section of this entire course. This is

3:20:51

where I get a lot of enjoyment and

3:20:54

fulfillment uh for myself in my career

3:20:57

is building teams and helping to develop

3:20:59

them. And so, a couple quick things that

3:21:01

I want to share with you before we

3:21:02

really dive in on why your team is

3:21:06

everything. Ultimately, your team is not

3:21:08

just there to execute, right? They are a

3:21:11

multiplier of the vision that you have.

3:21:14

A strong team doesn't just help you

3:21:16

scale. They are there to help you build

3:21:18

something far bigger than you could ever

3:21:20

do alone. Now, a lot of people watching

3:21:22

this probably have never built a team.

3:21:24

Definitely not a media or content team.

3:21:26

A couple things to keep in mind that

3:21:27

will help us as we go through this

3:21:29

section are one, you don't hire just for

3:21:32

skills. I actually emphasize hiring more

3:21:35

for culture than skills. I find it a lot

3:21:38

easier to train skills than culture fit.

3:21:42

You want to make sure that they align

3:21:44

with your brand, where you're wanting to

3:21:46

go. So, where you are right now and what

3:21:48

you're wanting to accomplish and the

3:21:50

subject matter that you're going to be

3:21:51

speaking about. They should be

3:21:52

interested and curious about those

3:21:54

things. You want to make sure that

3:21:55

you're hiring based off of platform

3:21:57

goals that you have. And so you want to

3:21:59

identify what are the different

3:22:00

platforms that we are emphasizing this

3:22:03

next year or years and build the team

3:22:06

around that not just your traditional

3:22:08

videographer, editor, designer, audio

3:22:11

engineer roles. And you want to make

3:22:13

sure that they fit into your overall

3:22:15

creative process. If you don't like a

3:22:18

lot of preparation for film days and you

3:22:20

like to go off the cuff, then you need

3:22:21

to make sure you're hiring people that

3:22:23

are comfortable with that and able to

3:22:25

ask you good questions to prompt more

3:22:28

information that comes out of you. And

3:22:30

number one is that we don't hire just to

3:22:34

fill roles. We hire to solve problems.

3:22:38

So, if there isn't a problem that you

3:22:40

can diagnose, then there shouldn't be a

3:22:44

role that we're hiring for this

3:22:45

non-existent problem. Ultimately, what

3:22:48

you end up doing, and I'll get into this

3:22:49

further in a little bit, but you end up

3:22:51

bringing somebody on that ultimately has

3:22:53

no purpose on the team. And that is

3:22:56

shitty for both parties. Another one is

3:22:58

that a bad hire doesn't just slow you

3:23:00

down, it massively slows you down. it

3:23:03

takes months to recover and you lose a

3:23:06

ton of money in the process. And so what

3:23:08

we're going to do in a little bit is

3:23:10

we're going to walk through my entire

3:23:11

hiring funnel. And I really encourage

3:23:14

you pay close attention during this

3:23:16

section because what we've talked about

3:23:18

brand content, that's super important.

3:23:20

But mistakes made on hiring your team

3:23:22

are going to cost you hundreds of

3:23:25

thousands of dollars and are going to

3:23:26

become a massive headache and ultimately

3:23:29

it causes a lot of people to write off

3:23:31

this whole team thing. I'm just going to

3:23:33

do it myself with one other person.

3:23:35

That's not the way that we want to do

3:23:36

this. But we want to do it correctly

3:23:38

from the start so that we build the

3:23:40

correct foundation. And lastly, the best

3:23:41

teams aren't built overnight. They

3:23:43

require patience, intention, and

3:23:45

investment in people who align with the

3:23:48

desired outcome and the brand that you

3:23:50

are building. So with that, let's dive

3:23:53

in. All right. So first, before we hire

3:23:55

anybody, let's define what we need.

3:23:59

Okay? So define your needs before

3:24:00

hiring. There's what you need and

3:24:02

there's what you want. We are only going

3:24:04

to hire on the prior. What you need. A

3:24:08

lot of people hire way too quickly and

3:24:11

they hire for roles that they think

3:24:13

they're going to need. They've maybe

3:24:15

heard people mention like that you need

3:24:17

this D and what they don't do is they

3:24:19

don't hire based on constraints. What

3:24:22

you want to do is look at your process

3:24:23

and what is causing the biggest

3:24:25

constraint. For example, before we dive

3:24:28

into this, if you are filming a bunch of

3:24:30

content but nothing's getting edited,

3:24:33

there is a very clear and obvious

3:24:35

constraint. It's editing. So, what would

3:24:37

you hire? An editor. If, on the other

3:24:39

hand, you're always getting videos done

3:24:41

in post-production, but you don't have

3:24:43

enough in the pipeline. So, the editor

3:24:45

is sitting there twiddling their thumbs

3:24:47

being like, "What the do I do?"

3:24:48

Maybe you hire a videographer or a

3:24:51

content strategist that can help you

3:24:53

ideulate and come up with new ideas to

3:24:55

film. We are hiring based on problems

3:24:58

and constraints we have in the process,

3:25:00

not off of some random perceived idea of

3:25:02

what we should have on the team. Now, to

3:25:04

avoid making the mistake of hiring just

3:25:06

what you want or what you think you need

3:25:08

versus hiring off of problems you have,

3:25:10

ask yourself these three questions. What

3:25:13

tasks are taking the most amount of time

3:25:14

away from high value work? Okay, so an

3:25:17

example of this is if you're a content

3:25:19

strategist but spend 50% of your time

3:25:22

editing videos, you might need an

3:25:24

editor. That's probably not the best use

3:25:26

of your time and skills, okay? Because

3:25:30

ultimately, you were hired to be the

3:25:32

strategist. And if you're splitting your

3:25:33

time, sure, in the beginning, you're

3:25:34

going to have to do that as you're

3:25:36

building the team, but eventually we get

3:25:38

to a point where we're going to want to

3:25:39

specialize. And so, if you are finding

3:25:42

that you were hired or you hired someone

3:25:45

for a very specific role and they're

3:25:47

fulfilling multiple roles, the way to

3:25:50

scale up or improve efficiency is to

3:25:53

hire somebody to do that role. In this

3:25:56

case, hiring an editor to relieve time

3:25:59

for your content strategist. Question

3:26:00

number two, what's slowing down

3:26:01

execution? And I hit it already at the

3:26:03

top, but I'm going to hammer it again

3:26:04

because it's really important. If you're

3:26:06

finding that you're filming all of this

3:26:08

content and then it's just not going

3:26:11

out, it's not getting done, you need to

3:26:14

hire an editor. If you are always ready

3:26:16

to film, always ready to edit, but

3:26:18

you're sitting there twiddling your

3:26:20

thumbs, not knowing what the to

3:26:21

actually film, than a content strategist

3:26:23

or ideation strategist, whatever you

3:26:25

want to call them, that is going to be

3:26:26

the critical role to bring into your

3:26:28

team. Whatever the bottleneck and

3:26:30

constraint is, that is what you want to

3:26:33

hire around. This is how we actually

3:26:36

scale rapidly. And the last question

3:26:38

you're going to ask yourself is, what

3:26:39

content opportunities are currently

3:26:41

being missed due to lack of resources?

3:26:44

So, for example, if we identify that

3:26:46

YouTube is your number one most

3:26:48

important platform and you're posting

3:26:50

one video a month and your goal is to

3:26:53

get to two, but the current bandwidth of

3:26:55

the team only allows for one. Well, then

3:26:57

we're going to go up to the question

3:26:59

above and we're going to find out which

3:27:01

part of the process is our constraint

3:27:04

and then we are going to hire for that.

3:27:06

Ultimately, it's all boiling down to

3:27:09

hiring around the problem, the

3:27:11

bottleneck, the constraint that you have

3:27:13

on the team. This is how we're going to

3:27:15

scale fast. If you hire five editors,

3:27:18

but editing isn't your constraint, you

3:27:21

just brought on a lot of cost for no

3:27:23

gain because you don't have enough input

3:27:26

to match the output the editors can

3:27:28

accomplish. Please prioritize hiring for

3:27:31

bottlenecks over convenience. Just

3:27:34

because you're really good at hiring

3:27:35

videographers doesn't mean that you need

3:27:37

to hire five of them. You want to make

3:27:39

sure that when you're hiring, you're

3:27:40

hiring to create more leverage, not just

3:27:43

offloading busy work. In fact,

3:27:45

oftentimes what you can find is as you

3:27:48

bring more people on, you can actually

3:27:50

eliminate the busy work because you

3:27:52

start to recognize the big tasks that

3:27:55

actually move the lever for the team.

3:27:57

Ultimately, we're not just trying to

3:27:58

lighten everyone's load. We're trying to

3:28:00

accelerate execution and the impact that

3:28:03

each individual has for the collective

3:28:05

team, which drives bigger impact for the

3:28:08

brand at large. Now, a huge mistake I

3:28:11

see a lot of people make is they hire

3:28:13

for general skills, not platform

3:28:16

specific needs. What do I mean by that?

3:28:18

Well, there is this very interesting

3:28:21

split in our world that is occurring

3:28:23

right now. You have great DPS, people

3:28:26

that are great at filming beautiful

3:28:28

videos. You have editors that are

3:28:29

incredible at editing these beautiful

3:28:31

commercials or these long form films

3:28:33

that you see going out on Netflix, etc.

3:28:35

And they are incredible editors at their

3:28:38

craft. But what a lot of people don't

3:28:39

recognize is a great editor for a

3:28:42

Netflix film is not a great editor for a

3:28:44

YouTube video. They are very different

3:28:47

skills and very different needs. Same

3:28:49

for the videographer. A DP that works on

3:28:52

some like Amazon or Hulu documentary is

3:28:55

going to have a very different set of

3:28:57

skills than somebody who is filming,

3:29:00

let's say, a vlog for one of the

3:29:01

YouTubers, one of the big YouTubers

3:29:03

online. Okay? Completely different

3:29:05

needs. And right now we're still in the

3:29:09

early stages of really understanding the

3:29:12

nuance and difference between those kind

3:29:13

of creatives. And so what you get a lot

3:29:16

of times is people hiring somebody who

3:29:18

is a great graphic designer and they

3:29:19

make amazing brochures. They're so good

3:29:21

at designing your logo, your website,

3:29:24

but they suck at YouTube

3:29:25

thumbnails because it is a totally

3:29:28

different skill set. And so what we want

3:29:30

to do is identify what are the platforms

3:29:32

that you are focusing on, which we've

3:29:34

already done. And once we've done that,

3:29:36

then we want to build the team around

3:29:39

those specific needs. If you're not

3:29:42

doing a lot of graphic design work,

3:29:44

brochures, business cards, flyers,

3:29:46

website updates, then you don't need a

3:29:48

traditional graphic designer. If all

3:29:50

they're doing is YouTube thumbnails,

3:29:51

then actually typically those

3:29:53

individuals do not have a traditional

3:29:56

graphic design background because a lot

3:29:59

of YouTube thumbnail best practices slap

3:30:02

in the face of traditional graphic

3:30:05

design best practices. Now, another

3:30:08

version of this is, and this is the

3:30:10

funniest one, people being like, "All

3:30:11

right, we're going to post some content

3:30:13

on social media, so we're going to hire

3:30:15

a social media manager." This is the

3:30:18

worst thing in the world. If

3:30:19

they're a generalist, if they are great

3:30:21

at all of the platforms, they suck at

3:30:23

all of the platforms. The reality is is

3:30:25

in 2025, there are very few people on

3:30:28

planet Earth, I would say less than

3:30:30

.001% that actually understand at a

3:30:33

master level all of the different

3:30:35

platforms. It'd be impossible.

3:30:36

They're evolving all the time. And so,

3:30:38

what you're going to actually find that

3:30:39

you want is you want channel specific

3:30:41

managers, not a social media manager. So

3:30:44

instead of hiring a social media manager

3:30:45

that oversees all your different

3:30:46

platforms, maybe what you're going to do

3:30:49

is in the beginning because you can't

3:30:50

afford to hire a manager for all five of

3:30:53

the platforms that you're on. Maybe what

3:30:55

you do is you make sure that your

3:30:56

creatives that you bring in emphasize

3:30:58

one of those platforms so that they have

3:31:00

a greater understanding than you do of

3:31:02

how YouTube works or Instagram or

3:31:05

LinkedIn or Facebook or whatever the new

3:31:07

one in 2026 is. Now, on the contrary, if

3:31:10

LinkedIn is where the majority of your

3:31:12

business results occur, where a lot of

3:31:14

conversions happen, where a lot of your

3:31:16

customers are, and a lot of interesting

3:31:18

conversations happen, well, I would

3:31:20

actually recommend hiring a LinkedIn

3:31:22

writer. Again, notice I didn't say

3:31:24

copywriter, just general. I said

3:31:26

LinkedIn writer. Hire them before a

3:31:28

video editor. Like, if you look at how

3:31:30

we approached content for Rston in 2025,

3:31:33

we started posting on LinkedIn before

3:31:35

any other platform. And so we emphasized

3:31:37

that. We started working with a LinkedIn

3:31:39

writer uh freelancer and instead of

3:31:42

making video content right away, we

3:31:44

actually emphasized that because I had a

3:31:46

feeling that that would generate a good

3:31:47

amount of leads for our business. And it

3:31:49

did. We made sure to align our hiring

3:31:53

with our actual needs. So as an example,

3:31:56

instead of hiring a generalist, you

3:31:57

might hire a YouTube editor and

3:31:59

immediately get 2x the content output.

3:32:02

You might then bring on a short form

3:32:04

video editor to maximize repurposing

3:32:07

that long- form content. Ultimately, a

3:32:09

lot of the times we're trying to build a

3:32:10

scenario where the individual, the

3:32:12

talent on camera isn't spending all

3:32:14

their time creating content. So maybe

3:32:16

for a while you have the long form that

3:32:18

you're doing and the editor does that.

3:32:19

They 2x the output and then the short

3:32:21

form editors are just utilizing that

3:32:23

same media, that same footage and

3:32:26

repurposing it, but you're getting two,

3:32:28

three, four, five times the amount of

3:32:30

impressions you would if you were just

3:32:32

doing the long form. Then maybe you hire

3:32:34

a platform strategist. And notice I'm

3:32:37

saying a platform strategist, not social

3:32:39

media strategist, because what you want

3:32:41

to do is you want to make sure they are

3:32:42

specifically tailored to the platforms

3:32:44

you're prioritizing. Now what you might

3:32:46

find in the beginning is you need to

3:32:48

hire somebody who is a gangster at

3:32:49

YouTube. They understand LinkedIn and

3:32:51

you know they dabble with Instagram.

3:32:53

That's fine. But you just want to make

3:32:54

sure that they are prioritizing and more

3:32:57

proficient in one. The

3:32:59

generalist not what you want. If it's

3:33:02

not obvious by now, the key

3:33:04

takeaway is always hire for the highest

3:33:06

impact content first. Whatever platform

3:33:10

you're getting the most traction on,

3:33:11

make sure you hire around that. and

3:33:13

whatever platform you're hiring around,

3:33:16

hire for whatever the biggest constraint

3:33:18

in the process for creating for that

3:33:21

platform is. So now we've defined what

3:33:24

the roles are that we need and and why

3:33:26

we need them and we're being very

3:33:27

intentional with how we're hiring them

3:33:29

and what problems we're trying to solve

3:33:32

with these hires. Now we got to actually

3:33:33

do the hiring. So let's streamline the

3:33:35

process. Just like we were defining our

3:33:38

needs, we are now going to define the

3:33:40

role clearly. One of the biggest

3:33:42

mistakes I see people make when they're

3:33:44

hiring a creative uh for their team is

3:33:47

just they don't know what they're

3:33:48

actually looking for. Maybe they know

3:33:50

the role and they know the problem, but

3:33:52

then they haven't articulated the

3:33:55

specific needs that they need to solve.

3:33:56

Let's say you're hiring a videographer

3:33:58

and you're going to be making uh vlog

3:34:01

content around motorcycles, right? You

3:34:03

hire this videographer, you know that

3:34:05

you're going to be filming vlog content,

3:34:06

so they got to be proficient at that.

3:34:08

You know it's going to be motorcycle

3:34:09

content. So, okay, you want them to be

3:34:12

at least somewhat interested in the

3:34:13

subject matter, but then what if you are

3:34:17

somebody who is only willing to film

3:34:20

early early in the morning, like 4:00

3:34:22

a.m. to 8:00 a.m. or 8:00 p.m. to

3:34:24

midnight, and you have those very

3:34:26

specific needs. If you have not

3:34:27

articulated that in your job

3:34:30

description, you are going to get a lot

3:34:32

of people that apply and go through the

3:34:34

interview process and waste your time

3:34:36

that are not willing to work within

3:34:38

those hours. And so you need to really

3:34:41

sit down and clearly articulate what are

3:34:44

all the needs, not just the function,

3:34:47

not just the subject matter, but also

3:34:49

what are the ancillary needs that you

3:34:51

have that are unique to you. So, a

3:34:53

couple of questions you can ask yourself

3:34:55

before you start looking for candidates

3:34:57

are the following. Is this role about

3:34:59

creating, managing, or analyzing

3:35:01

content? An example is that a YouTube

3:35:03

editor is creating content, but a

3:35:06

content strategist is managing and

3:35:09

optimizing distribution. Very key

3:35:12

distinction there. So, we want to make

3:35:13

sure we understand what their function,

3:35:15

what their role is. Number two, are we

3:35:17

at the point in our team, in our

3:35:21

company, in our brand where we can

3:35:24

actually hire somebody who is focused on

3:35:26

a single platform or are we still in the

3:35:28

early stage where we need somebody who

3:35:29

can work across multiple platforms?

3:35:31

Again, from what I said earlier, you

3:35:33

want to always make sure that you are

3:35:35

hiring somebody who is a specialist, but

3:35:37

in the beginning, you can't hire people

3:35:39

that are only going to do one thing.

3:35:41

It's just impossible. So you hire a

3:35:43

specialist who is willing to play the

3:35:45

role of a generalist and they do end up

3:35:47

taking on multiple platforms in the

3:35:49

beginning. This needs to be clearly

3:35:51

defined and articulated not only for

3:35:53

yourself but for the candidates. Number

3:35:55

three is how does this role contribute

3:35:57

to the bigger picture. This is really

3:35:59

important because one you want to know

3:36:01

it so that you can justify paying this

3:36:03

person but also you want to always be

3:36:06

tying what the individual once you hire

3:36:09

them what they are doing to the big

3:36:11

picture to the vision to how the company

3:36:14

how the brand is scaling and growing. If

3:36:17

you do that it gives them way bigger

3:36:18

purpose and allows them to see

3:36:20

themselves in that role in that

3:36:23

organization for a lot longer. And

3:36:25

again, please remember, I'm just going

3:36:27

to keep emphasizing this throughout it

3:36:28

because it's so important. Every hire

3:36:30

should be brought on to remove a

3:36:33

bottleneck, to solve a problem, and

3:36:35

allow the team to execute faster and

3:36:38

more effectively. All right, cool. So,

3:36:40

we've defined what we need. We've

3:36:41

defined the role. Now, it's time for

3:36:44

everybody's favorite activity, which is

3:36:46

writing a job description. Now, I say

3:36:47

that sarcastically, but I actually, for

3:36:49

whatever reason, I don't know what the

3:36:50

is wrong with my brain, I love

3:36:52

writing job descriptions. I love the

3:36:54

whole hiring process, interviewing,

3:36:55

everything. It's my favorite. But if

3:36:57

it's not your favorite, I think walking

3:36:59

through this is going to be extremely

3:37:01

helpful for you. What do you get with

3:37:02

vague job descriptions? Vague

3:37:04

candidates. Be very specific with

3:37:08

responsibilities and expectations. So, I

3:37:12

like to use the four Rs framework for

3:37:13

drafting job descriptions. And rather

3:37:15

than just running through the different

3:37:17

four Rs, I actually want to describe

3:37:19

what each R is and then walk you through

3:37:22

an actual job description that I have

3:37:24

here right in front of me on my phone.

3:37:25

So the first R is role. What

3:37:27

contribution is this individual making

3:37:30

to the organization? What function do

3:37:32

they have within the team? So for this

3:37:34

job description, this is for a brand

3:37:35

director and the role overview is

3:37:38

company is looking for a brand director

3:37:40

to build and scale the CEO's personal

3:37:42

brand across YouTube, LinkedIn and other

3:37:44

key platforms. This role requires a deep

3:37:47

understanding of content strategy,

3:37:49

social media growth, and personal brand

3:37:51

development. You will be responsible for

3:37:52

transforming CEO's thought leadership

3:37:54

into an influential digital presence

3:37:57

that resonates with entrepreneurs,

3:37:58

business leaders, and innovators. So

3:38:01

that's the role part of the job

3:38:03

description. All right. So now we move

3:38:05

down to responsibilities. What are they

3:38:07

going to own? What tasks are they going

3:38:09

to own on a daily, weekly, monthly,

3:38:11

quarterly basis. This is a very

3:38:14

extensive one. So stick with me. Under

3:38:16

responsibilities, we have it broken down

3:38:18

into different subsections. First one is

3:38:20

content strategy and execution.

3:38:22

establish and scale the CEO's YouTube

3:38:25

presence, leveraging his speeches and

3:38:27

interviews to create both long- form and

3:38:29

short form content, eventually building

3:38:31

on top of this and developing platform

3:38:33

native platform first YouTube content.

3:38:36

Develop and execute a LinkedIn content

3:38:38

strategy incorporating a mix of written

3:38:40

posts and short form videos derived from

3:38:43

existing content. creative production

3:38:45

and management, oversee the filming and

3:38:47

editing process for social content,

3:38:49

ensuring highquality production and

3:38:51

platform specific optimization. And I

3:38:54

think you get the picture here like the

3:38:56

responsibilities are going very tactical

3:38:58

into what they are owning. What are they

3:39:01

doing on a daily basis that you expect

3:39:04

them to do? Now the next one is

3:39:06

requirements. I think this is pretty

3:39:07

obvious and and speaks for itself, but

3:39:09

essentially this is what are the skills

3:39:10

and experience they need or are required

3:39:13

in order for them to do this job to get

3:39:16

this role. So again, for this one, I'll

3:39:18

read a couple of the requirements, not

3:39:19

all of them. Uh, one of them is three

3:39:20

plus years of experience growing a

3:39:22

personal brand with proven success in

3:39:24

scaling reach and engagement, a strong

3:39:26

background in filming, editing, and

3:39:28

social content production, both short

3:39:30

form and long form. Experience managing

3:39:31

creatives. exceptional storytelling

3:39:33

skills with the ability to extract and

3:39:36

refine high value insights. So that's

3:39:38

requirements. Again, this is just

3:39:40

telling them this is what you need to be

3:39:42

able to do and have done in your career

3:39:44

thus far in order to qualify for this

3:39:47

role. And the final R is results. What

3:39:50

are the success metrics that we are

3:39:53

tracking? What does success look like?

3:39:55

What are we expecting them to do and

3:39:58

accomplish or what are we expecting to

3:40:00

have happen based on their

3:40:03

responsibilities? Think of it like

3:40:04

responsibilities is the input and

3:40:07

results is the output of those

3:40:09

responsibilities. So on this one, I'll

3:40:11

read you a couple. Again, I'm not going

3:40:12

to read them all cuz this is a very

3:40:13

heady extensive one. And this is

3:40:15

definitely going to be one of those

3:40:16

things that you can download. I'm sure

3:40:18

there's already been an icon that popped

3:40:19

up. Study it, duplicate it, and

3:40:21

use it for yourself. If you're hiring a

3:40:22

brand director, by all means, use it how

3:40:25

you need. Establish the CEO's YouTube

3:40:27

channel with consistent long- form

3:40:28

uploads and high performing clips. A

3:40:30

minimum of two videos per month. Scale

3:40:32

LinkedIn engagement and follower growth

3:40:34

through a mix of written and video

3:40:35

content. Posting at least two written

3:40:38

and two video posts per week. We want to

3:40:41

make sure that it is not only describing

3:40:43

the efforts, but it's very specific on

3:40:45

what the output will be. So, if you want

3:40:48

to be doing two videos a month, okay,

3:40:50

cool. Make sure to specify that, not

3:40:52

just say establish CEO's YouTube channel

3:40:54

with consistent long form uploads and

3:40:56

high performing clips. That would be

3:40:57

very vague and not helpful. Two things

3:41:00

that I like to add to a four Rs and they

3:41:02

have nothing to do. They don't start

3:41:03

with an R or anything, but it's

3:41:04

communication and cadence and

3:41:06

expectations. I always like to make sure

3:41:08

that a candidate understands like if you

3:41:11

expect them to respond at 7:30 a.m. in

3:41:15

the morning on Slack, well, that's not

3:41:18

necessarily the norm in most workplaces.

3:41:21

And so, if that is an expectation you

3:41:22

have, okay, by all means, have that. But

3:41:25

make sure you vocalize it and make it

3:41:27

clear to them before you hire them so

3:41:30

that they can tell you whether or not

3:41:32

they are down for that or not. And if

3:41:34

they're not, they're not the right fit

3:41:35

for your role. And that's fine. No

3:41:37

worries. The other one that I like to

3:41:39

add is core values. I like to ensure

3:41:40

that if a candidate is going to come in

3:41:42

and join the company that they agree

3:41:45

with what our core values are. And

3:41:46

ideally, it's something that they

3:41:48

already prioritize in their personal

3:41:51

life. And so when they hear your core

3:41:53

values, they actually resonate with it

3:41:54

and are able to speak to, oh, I live my

3:41:58

life by this. This is actually how I

3:41:59

apply blank core value. All right. We've

3:42:03

defined the need. We've defined the

3:42:04

role. We've even created a job

3:42:06

description using the four Rs framework.

3:42:08

And now we need to start the hiring

3:42:11

process. So, I'm going to share with you

3:42:13

my hiring funnel. Now, this is probably

3:42:16

going to seem pretty extensive and maybe

3:42:19

a little too much. It's worth it. We

3:42:21

talked at the top about how expensive it

3:42:23

is to hire somebody that is not the

3:42:26

right fit and then have to exit them and

3:42:29

rekick off the search. It is a brutal,

3:42:32

painful process. Trust me, I've been

3:42:34

through it multiple times. Do everything

3:42:36

in your power to not shortcut things. I

3:42:40

will tell you, I have hired a lot of

3:42:43

different creatives and anytime that

3:42:46

I've made a mistake on it, it's for only

3:42:48

one reason. I was in a rush. We had pain

3:42:50

on the team. We had pain in our process.

3:42:53

We had a very clear definition of what

3:42:56

we needed. And we were clearly solving a

3:42:58

problem because it was a problem we were

3:43:00

feeling every day.

3:43:03

But

3:43:03

I tried to shortcut the process and I

3:43:07

ignored red flags that were pretty

3:43:11

obvious and in my face. What

3:43:14

this hiring funnel is designed to do is

3:43:17

to make those red flags very clear, very

3:43:20

obvious, and then allow you and your

3:43:22

team to discuss them. Ultimately, we're

3:43:25

never going to find when we're searching

3:43:26

for a candidate a 100%. There it just

3:43:29

doesn't exist. So what you're looking

3:43:30

for is an 80% and you want to discuss

3:43:33

with your team if that remaining 20% is

3:43:36

something you feel confident either you

3:43:39

don't need or you can train. So the

3:43:41

first part of the hiring funnel is you

3:43:43

need to have a place where candidates

3:43:46

can submit their CV and potentially even

3:43:49

a video. This is obvious like you know

3:43:52

you can use Indeed, you can use all

3:43:54

these different platforms or you can

3:43:55

have something hosted on your website. I

3:43:57

would encourage you to do that if

3:43:58

possible. And this is an area where

3:43:59

they're able to upload their CV and show

3:44:02

you their work history. This seems

3:44:04

obvious, but there's a lot of you out

3:44:06

there right now that are thinking about

3:44:08

building your creative team and you've

3:44:10

never really thought about this part.

3:44:12

No, I don't overemphasize CVs and I want

3:44:15

to make sure that's super clear. It's

3:44:17

not the most important thing by any

3:44:19

means, but it does reveal some potential

3:44:22

strengths or weaknesses. For example, if

3:44:25

you notice that a candidate has had 10

3:44:28

jobs in the last five years, that is an

3:44:31

interesting thing. Not necessarily

3:44:33

something that's going to rule them out

3:44:35

by any means. Different industries,

3:44:37

different roles have higher turnover,

3:44:39

right? And it might be just normal and

3:44:40

part of the function of that role.

3:44:42

That's fine. But it's definitely

3:44:43

something you're going to want to have a

3:44:45

little bit of a further investigation on

3:44:46

and discuss in the screening call. And

3:44:48

for the video portion, I highly

3:44:51

encourage anybody that I'm working with

3:44:53

to give the option for a candidate to

3:44:56

submit a video. I wouldn't require it,

3:44:58

but I would definitely give them the

3:45:00

option. And the reason why is I think

3:45:02

one, you see a lot of creativity that

3:45:04

comes through, but more than that,

3:45:06

there's no personality. There's no human

3:45:09

element that comes through in a CV.

3:45:10

You're not going to see like how they

3:45:12

talk if they talk too much, their

3:45:14

negative or positive tone, right? you're

3:45:16

not going to see their little quirks,

3:45:18

their silly personality that come out.

3:45:20

That can be such a massive benefit for

3:45:22

you to see how you feel they will fit

3:45:25

with the rest of your team. For example,

3:45:28

there was a role that I was hiring maybe

3:45:29

about a year, a year and a half ago, a

3:45:31

creative director role. We had been

3:45:32

looking for about 3 or 4 months. I

3:45:35

remember this one candidate came through

3:45:37

and I was very impressed with their CV

3:45:39

and everything, but what really

3:45:41

impressed me and stood out was they had

3:45:44

made a video, not like an edit that was

3:45:47

showing what their skills were. It was a

3:45:49

video of them talking about their

3:45:51

experience, their background, their

3:45:53

passions, and how that applied to the

3:45:56

role we were hiring. It was it was

3:45:58

amazing. It was a multicam video, too. I

3:46:00

mean, it was very impressive and it was

3:46:01

very clear that this individual was

3:46:04

hungry for the role and truly believed

3:46:07

they were the right fit. They put in way

3:46:10

more effort than any of the other

3:46:11

candidates. And spoiler alert, we hired

3:46:14

him. After they submit their resume or

3:46:16

CV, you're going to have somebody on

3:46:18

your team that is going to be doing

3:46:21

screening calls. So, what they're going

3:46:22

to do is they're going to have gobs and

3:46:24

and piles of résumés and CVs to look

3:46:26

through. In doing the screening, what

3:46:28

you're trying to do is you're verifying

3:46:30

that they are aligned with the salary

3:46:32

expectations. If you're wanting them to

3:46:34

be in person or remote or hybrid, they

3:46:37

understand the communication

3:46:38

expectations. If you're an organization

3:46:40

that needs somebody working 6 days a

3:46:42

week, you're making sure that they're

3:46:44

okay with that. If this role is someone

3:46:46

who is traveling, let's say it's, you

3:46:48

know, a videographer that's always going

3:46:49

to be on the road traveling five days a

3:46:52

week. Well, you need to make sure that

3:46:53

they saw that in the job description and

3:46:56

they're good with that. And so, you're

3:46:58

just making sure that this candidate

3:47:00

understands all the basics and they're

3:47:03

good with it. You're also verifying a

3:47:05

little bit of experience. So, I give a

3:47:07

few questions to the screeners, whoever

3:47:09

is doing it, whether it's a recruiter or

3:47:11

just somebody else on your team. I tend

3:47:13

to provide them two or three slightly

3:47:15

technical questions. The reason why is

3:47:17

because oftentimes if I'm running the

3:47:19

technical assessment or the technical

3:47:21

interview or the final interview, I want

3:47:24

to watch the screening call. I want to

3:47:26

understand how they showed up so that I

3:47:28

know how to interview them. And by

3:47:30

asking a few light technical questions,

3:47:32

you get a lot of insight on whether or

3:47:35

not they know what the they're

3:47:36

actually talking about or if they're

3:47:37

just kind of bullshitting you. Or the

3:47:40

craziest thing that I've literally

3:47:42

encountered five times in the last month

3:47:44

is individuals using AI that is

3:47:47

listening to the question in the

3:47:48

background and spitting out an answer in

3:47:50

bullet points for them to regurgitate to

3:47:53

you. This is becoming a very big thing

3:47:54

and uh I have literally experienced it

3:47:56

five times in the last month and it's

3:47:58

it's alarming. If you get a good

3:48:00

technical question or two into the

3:48:02

screening interview, you typically can

3:48:05

avoid this and sus out if it's actually

3:48:08

Sarah answering the question or if it's

3:48:10

chat GBT. Once they get through your

3:48:12

second line of defense, which is the

3:48:14

screening call, you're going to go to a

3:48:15

technical interview. Now, ideally, this

3:48:18

is conducted by somebody who actually

3:48:20

understands the role deeply. So for me,

3:48:22

luckily I understand all the different

3:48:24

roles on a creative team. So I'm able to

3:48:27

do a technical interview for any role.

3:48:29

Designer, motion graphics, uh

3:48:31

videographer, editor, copywriter,

3:48:33

content strategist, channel manager,

3:48:36

anything you name it. Often times you

3:48:37

don't have somebody like that in your

3:48:39

organization. And so if you don't, what

3:48:41

you're going to look for is somebody who

3:48:43

can understand the role as best as

3:48:45

possible, right? And so what this might

3:48:47

look like is doing some research on what

3:48:50

a YouTube video editor is and what they

3:48:52

need to be proficient in so that you can

3:48:54

actually ask them the right questions.

3:48:57

Because if you don't ask them the right

3:48:59

questions, you're not going to know if

3:49:00

they're the right fit. There's a second

3:49:02

thing that I'm going to touch on here in

3:49:03

a second, technical assessment. Just cuz

3:49:05

they do an amazing job on a technical

3:49:06

assessment doesn't necessarily mean they

3:49:08

can do it over and over and over again.

3:49:10

And so you want to ask strategic

3:49:12

questions that not only show that they

3:49:14

know what they're doing, but show you

3:49:15

how they think about solving problems,

3:49:18

how they think about coming up with new

3:49:20

ideas and innovating on stuff they've

3:49:23

already been doing. Your goal with the

3:49:24

technical interview is to assess

3:49:26

strategic knowledge and the ability to

3:49:28

execute. You want to make sure they have

3:49:30

both. So, for example, if I'm

3:49:32

interviewing a short form editor, let's

3:49:34

say I have a brand and we have a very

3:49:38

known style of short form content, okay?

3:49:42

And a lot of people copy it, for

3:49:43

example. Well, if that's the case, I'm

3:49:45

going to not ask the short form editor,

3:49:49

do you know how to make what we are

3:49:50

currently doing? What I'm going to ask

3:49:52

them, and this is what I've done with

3:49:54

many of the different brands I've worked

3:49:55

with, I'm going to ask, how would you go

3:49:58

about innovating on this? I'm tired of

3:50:00

the style that we've been doing for the

3:50:01

last 6 months. I need something fresh

3:50:03

and new. What would you do in order to

3:50:07

get that new style? What I'm not looking

3:50:09

for is the right answer of this is the

3:50:12

new style I would do. I'm looking for

3:50:15

how they think. How would they go about

3:50:18

getting that new style, creating that

3:50:20

new style? Because the problem for a lot

3:50:23

of editors is they're very good at

3:50:26

following rules and instructions. They

3:50:29

come from a checklist army, but they

3:50:31

don't have ownership and they don't have

3:50:33

the ability to create innovation and

3:50:36

drive a new style, new format on their

3:50:38

own. And so that's where you're trying

3:50:40

to assess their strategic knowledge and

3:50:43

abilities to execute on said strategic

3:50:46

knowledge. So if they pass the technical

3:50:48

interview, you're going to want to

3:50:50

immediately provide them a technical

3:50:53

assessment. This should mirror what

3:50:55

their actual job looks like. You don't

3:50:58

want to do something that has nothing to

3:50:59

do with what their day-to-day is. This

3:51:01

is your opportunity to see how do they

3:51:04

show up on the tasks that I'm going to

3:51:06

be giving them daily, weekly, or

3:51:08

monthly. So, for example, if we're

3:51:10

hiring that short form editor, what I'm

3:51:13

going to do is they just walked me

3:51:15

through how they would go about creating

3:51:16

a new style for our short form content.

3:51:19

So, what am I going to do for the

3:51:20

technical assessment? I'm going to give

3:51:22

them 72 hours and maybe one hour of raw

3:51:26

footage and let them create a new style

3:51:30

for our short form content. Now, what

3:51:33

are we testing in this? Well, one, we

3:51:34

gave them a 72-hour deadline. So, we're

3:51:36

seeing how are they with time management

3:51:38

and commitments. Number two, they're

3:51:40

going to have to deliver this item to

3:51:43

us. How do they go about delivering it?

3:51:44

Like, do they just like upload it to

3:51:46

Google Drive and hit share straight from

3:51:48

Google Drive? Do they package it into an

3:51:49

email? How is their communication?

3:51:51

Number four, we're seeing can they

3:51:53

actually execute on what they were

3:51:55

saying in the interview? They talked a

3:51:57

good talk of how they're going to come

3:51:58

up with a new format and new style. Can

3:52:01

they actually deliver on that? And

3:52:02

number five, do they show their work? So

3:52:05

maybe they created this new style, but

3:52:07

do they explain how they went about it?

3:52:10

Now, that's bonus points and everything,

3:52:12

but if somebody does that, what that

3:52:14

shows me is they have the strategic

3:52:15

ability, they're very creative, they can

3:52:18

execute, and even crazier, they could

3:52:20

train somebody else to do the same. If

3:52:23

they can understand the why and the how,

3:52:25

then they can duplicate that to anybody.

3:52:28

But again, please just make sure that

3:52:30

the technical assessment lines up with

3:52:32

what their actual role is. You don't

3:52:33

want to waste anybody's time. The other

3:52:34

thing too, little side note here is

3:52:37

ensure that you give every single

3:52:39

candidate for the same role the same

3:52:41

technical assessment. If you give them

3:52:42

different you don't know how to

3:52:44

measure them against each other versus

3:52:45

if they all have the same thing, you're

3:52:47

able to assess who's the right fit and

3:52:48

who's not the right fit for your team.

3:52:50

If they absolutely blew you away with

3:52:53

their technical interview and their

3:52:54

technical assessment, congrats. You're

3:52:57

on to the next round. It's not over yet.

3:52:59

Culture interview. If you are a team, an

3:53:02

individual or a company that actually

3:53:05

operates off of your core values and

3:53:09

builds your culture accordingly, then

3:53:12

this should really matter. This

3:53:14

is where you find out, okay, they're

3:53:16

very technically proficient. They're

3:53:17

very good at their job. Now, the way

3:53:19

they operate as a human in the

3:53:21

workplace, does that work with the

3:53:24

current humans we have in the workplace?

3:53:26

For example, if speed of communication

3:53:29

is a high priority, like you send a

3:53:32

Slack message and expect a response at

3:53:34

the latest five minutes later, and this

3:53:36

person prioritizes deep work and will go

3:53:39

8 hours a day without checking their

3:53:40

Slack, they might be an incredible

3:53:42

editor and do amazing work, but it might

3:53:45

not work well for your team. If you

3:53:47

expect 5 minutes and they wait 8 hours,

3:53:50

you're going to be pissed. and

3:53:51

you're going to be pissed, but it's not

3:53:53

really their fault because you didn't do

3:53:55

a good job of determining whether or not

3:53:58

they lined up with your communication

3:54:00

culture. And honestly, a lot of the

3:54:02

hires that I've made, I actually

3:54:05

overemphasize their cultural fit over

3:54:07

their technical fit. And it's just my

3:54:09

belief that I can train the technical

3:54:11

gap pretty well. It's actually really

3:54:13

not that hard to take an editor who you

3:54:15

might rate as like a five or six out of

3:54:16

10 to like a eight or nine fairly

3:54:19

quickly. However, somebody culturally

3:54:21

that you rate as a five or six, taking

3:54:22

them to a eight or nine, that's going to

3:54:24

be a lot harder. You're talking about

3:54:26

ways that somebody operates in and

3:54:28

outside of work. And so, if they're

3:54:30

getting reinforcement and they're

3:54:32

building the pattern of doing it outside

3:54:34

of work, you have a big hill to climb.

3:54:38

So, I prefer if somebody is technically

3:54:42

mid, but they are culturally great. They

3:54:45

show enthusiasm, lack of ego, and

3:54:48

they're willing to do whatever the

3:54:49

it takes. Man, I'd hire that person at a

3:54:51

five or a six over an eight or nine

3:54:53

editor who has a massive ego, who can't

3:54:56

take any feedback, and is kind of lazy.

3:54:59

And actually, an example of this is

3:55:01

Trevor Odum. I hired Trevor about 3

3:55:03

years ago, and I would call him probably

3:55:06

a 6 out of 10 in his editing.

3:55:08

Culturally, he was a 10 out of 10. He

3:55:10

showed massive humility. He showed

3:55:13

extreme eagerness to learn, willing to

3:55:16

do whatever it took, hard

3:55:19

worker, would take the shitty

3:55:21

responsibilities as well as the cool

3:55:23

responsibilities, and showed a lot of

3:55:25

consistency, especially for a young age.

3:55:27

I hired Trevor and we trained and worked

3:55:31

on his technical skills. And the reason

3:55:32

why we were able to work on the

3:55:34

technical skills and he was able to see

3:55:36

growth is because he had the soft

3:55:38

skills. The culture of it was very much

3:55:40

there. I'll take that all day

3:55:42

over somebody who is highly proficient

3:55:44

but a Now, ways that

3:55:46

you can identify whether or not they're

3:55:48

a culture fit is asking about their past

3:55:50

work environments. What was that like?

3:55:51

How do they approach problem solving? A

3:55:53

question that I really like to ask is if

3:55:55

you're in a meeting with five or more

3:55:57

people and somebody gives you direct

3:55:58

feedback in front of everyone, how do

3:56:00

you respond? If somebody is demanding

3:56:02

that you drop what you are currently

3:56:03

working on and assist them, but they're

3:56:06

not your manager, how do you respond? I

3:56:08

like to give them real life scenarios

3:56:09

that actually occur in the workplace.

3:56:11

And what I just mentioned is two of many

3:56:13

very common occurrences that happen in

3:56:16

the workplace. Right? If I know somebody

3:56:17

who's higher up on the team, maybe the

3:56:19

CEO or CMO has a preferred way of

3:56:22

communicating, I'm going to ask them how

3:56:24

they feel about that preferred way of

3:56:26

communicating. A lot of CEOs actually

3:56:28

prefer very direct, very quick

3:56:30

communication. They don't add fluff.

3:56:32

They don't add smiley faces and things

3:56:33

like that. I like to ask, are you okay

3:56:36

with that? Sometimes if you're hiring a

3:56:38

videographer to film with a CEO, for

3:56:39

example, the CEO is not going to want to

3:56:42

talk to the videographer about their

3:56:43

life. They're not going to want to talk

3:56:44

about anything other than what they are

3:56:46

there to film. That's okay. There's

3:56:48

nothing wrong with that. But I need to

3:56:49

make sure that the videographer is going

3:56:52

to be able to handle something like that

3:56:54

and not need to talk about their

3:56:56

personal life with their boss. All

3:56:57

right. If we have passed the screening,

3:56:59

if we've passed the technical interview,

3:57:01

the technical assessment and the culture

3:57:03

interview, we are now on to the final

3:57:07

interview. And typically what this looks

3:57:08

like is a high-up leader. So if there is

3:57:11

a department like let's say for example

3:57:13

you have a CMO in your company and your

3:57:16

content team falls under the marketing

3:57:19

department maybe the final interview is

3:57:20

going to be with the CMO or if it's a

3:57:23

very very uh important and crucial role

3:57:25

maybe the final interview is with the

3:57:27

CEO I prefer the final interview to be

3:57:29

with the most senior person that this

3:57:31

individual will be corresponding with.

3:57:33

So if they are going to be messaging or

3:57:35

interacting with the CEO in any manner I

3:57:37

do think that the final interview should

3:57:39

be the CEO. However, if they're never

3:57:41

going to interact with the CEO at all,

3:57:42

CMO, director of brand, whatever is

3:57:45

perfectly perfectly fine. And usually

3:57:47

the way this works is it's somebody with

3:57:49

a lot of experience. Okay? So, they've

3:57:51

hired a lot of people. They've hired a

3:57:53

lot of the right people. They've hired a

3:57:54

lot of the wrong people. And they're

3:57:56

reviewing all the different interview

3:57:58

notes from all the different interviews

3:58:00

leading to this moment. They are the

3:58:02

ones with the most context, both from

3:58:04

their past history, but also the most

3:58:06

context on this specific candidate. And

3:58:08

so it's their job to poke holes in any

3:58:11

areas that were question marks from the

3:58:14

previous interviews. If somebody thought

3:58:16

they were hardworking but potentially

3:58:18

weren't open to working on weekends and

3:58:20

this role required every once in a while

3:58:21

to work a Saturday or Sunday, the final

3:58:24

interview is going to have to press into

3:58:26

that and ensure that they're okay

3:58:28

working on an occasional Saturday or

3:58:30

Sunday. You shouldn't leave the final

3:58:31

interview with any additional questions.

3:58:33

Everything should be finalized within

3:58:36

that interview. Now, the same goes for

3:58:37

the candidate. You give them on all of

3:58:39

these, but especially the final

3:58:41

interview, you want to give them the

3:58:42

opportunity to ask you questions as

3:58:44

well. In doing so, you're going to learn

3:58:46

a lot about them. If they have no

3:58:49

questions to ask, probably not a good

3:58:51

thing. On the other hand, somebody who

3:58:53

asks very strategic questions that make

3:58:55

sure that they understand what is

3:58:57

required, what's expected of them or

3:58:59

they gain clarity on that. That is

3:59:01

somebody who is very interesting because

3:59:03

they are thoughtful and they make their

3:59:04

decisions based on information and

3:59:06

context, not just emotion and

3:59:09

excitement. Now, here's a pro tip. Uh,

3:59:11

what I just said is insane,

3:59:13

right? That's like so many different

3:59:14

steps. And you might be like, "Yo,

3:59:16

homie, I am a oneperson team that's

3:59:18

about to hire my first person." Then

3:59:19

what I would encourage you to do is not

3:59:21

skip any of these steps, but maybe what

3:59:23

you do is you combine them. So instead

3:59:24

of having six different steps in the

3:59:27

process, maybe you have three different

3:59:29

calls or two different calls that you do

3:59:31

with this person or these candidates and

3:59:33

you just chunk them together. So maybe

3:59:35

the technical, maybe the screening and

3:59:37

the technical occur in the same call.

3:59:39

Maybe culture and final are same and you

3:59:41

have the technical assessment in

3:59:42

between. That would be a three-part

3:59:44

process and you would be able to

3:59:45

accomplish that with one person.

3:59:48

ultimately use what you got. Okay? Like

3:59:50

if you don't have a team of 20 people,

3:59:52

yeah, you're not going to execute this.

3:59:54

That's fine. The other thing that I will

3:59:55

say is sometimes there are individuals

3:59:57

who you work with on a vendor like basis

4:00:01

that they might be able to be part of

4:00:02

the process. Say for example, you have a

4:00:04

YouTube agency you're working with and

4:00:06

you're hiring a YouTube editor. If you

4:00:08

have a good relationship with this

4:00:09

agency and you trust them and you've

4:00:11

established what the timeline of your

4:00:13

engagement will be, so they know you're

4:00:15

eventually bringing it inhouse, maybe

4:00:17

they can conduct the technical interview

4:00:19

for the YouTube editor since they

4:00:21

probably understand YouTube editing far

4:00:23

more than you do. So, there's a lot of

4:00:25

ways to be creative with this. Don't

4:00:27

write it off just because you don't have

4:00:28

the headcount to be able to do such an

4:00:32

extensive process. You want to be

4:00:34

extensive. You want to be detailed

4:00:36

because you're bringing somebody in that

4:00:38

is either going to raise the bar or

4:00:41

lower the bar. And all we want to do

4:00:43

here is raise the bar. Okay. So, why

4:00:45

does this process actually work? Well,

4:00:48

one, it removes bad hires early.

4:00:50

Especially the optional video. This can

4:00:52

filter out candidates who aren't taking

4:00:54

the role serious, right? They're

4:00:55

applying to a hundred different role. I

4:00:57

mean, now using AI, they can

4:00:59

automate applying to like a million

4:01:01

different roles every day. And

4:01:02

so you can weed out who are the ones

4:01:04

that are just mass applying versus the

4:01:07

ones that are looking at this specific

4:01:09

role within your specific organization

4:01:11

or team and saying I'm a good fit for

4:01:14

this. Number two is we are actually

4:01:16

ensuring that there's platform alignment

4:01:19

here. Like we said at the top, we're

4:01:20

trying to prioritize platforms and hire

4:01:22

people accordingly, right? And so we're

4:01:25

using technical assessments to test the

4:01:27

execution ability before hiring them for

4:01:30

that specific platform. So, we get to

4:01:32

see this YouTube editor. Are they a

4:01:34

great editor or are they a great YouTube

4:01:36

editor? Number three is that it creates

4:01:38

cultural fit. Culture interviews allow

4:01:41

you to

4:01:42

avoid hiring somebody who is highkilled

4:01:45

but also a piece of Somebody who's

4:01:48

not going to fit into your culture. And

4:01:50

just because they don't fit in your

4:01:51

culture doesn't mean they're a piece of

4:01:52

But there are lots of pieces of

4:01:54

out there that are great

4:01:56

technically at what they do. and 6

4:01:59

months in you find out they're an

4:02:01

absolute nightmare to have on the team.

4:02:03

And even though their performance is

4:02:04

high, they drag everybody else's

4:02:06

performance low and they're actually an

4:02:07

anchor rather than a rocket. And

4:02:09

finally, this actually just speeds up

4:02:11

the hiring process. If you have a

4:02:13

designed and intentional process that

4:02:15

you follow, everybody whether it's you

4:02:18

yourself and I or you and your team are

4:02:22

on the same page and eliminates a lot of

4:02:24

unnecessary back and forth and it can

4:02:26

move people through the funnel a lot

4:02:29

faster. Now, I'm also going to share

4:02:31

with you a completely different funnel

4:02:32

system, but it doesn't work for every

4:02:34

single role. I've typically found that

4:02:36

it works best for editors, designers,

4:02:37

and strategists. It's a try out system

4:02:40

or a try out funnel. And I'm just going

4:02:42

to walk you through exactly how I do it.

4:02:44

What I did is on Monday, I announced

4:02:47

that we were conducting tryyouts. On

4:02:50

Monday, I opened up registration for the

4:02:52

tryyouts and closed registration by

4:02:54

12:00 p.m. Pacific time on Thursday. So,

4:02:57

they had a couple of days to be able to

4:02:59

sign up. Thursday at 3 or maybe 5:00

4:03:02

p.m., we sent out an email to everyone

4:03:05

who had registered. And the email had

4:03:08

the following. It had instructions on

4:03:10

what we expected. We want you to edit a

4:03:13

12 to 20 minute YouTube video using this

4:03:17

raw footage. We want you to create a

4:03:20

thumbnail and title. And we want you to

4:03:22

create a short form video that goes with

4:03:24

it. We were asking for a lot, but

4:03:26

ultimately that's what we're asking for

4:03:28

in the day-to-day job. And so we want to

4:03:30

make sure that what the assessment is

4:03:32

mirrors the job. And so what you're

4:03:34

going to notice here is it's essentially

4:03:36

the same funnel, but it's in a different

4:03:38

order. So we sent that email out. We

4:03:41

linked them to the raw footage, and we

4:03:43

gave them a due date. Again, this was

4:03:44

sent out Thursday at 5:00 p.m., and the

4:03:47

due date was Monday at 9:00 a.m. Just

4:03:49

like I mentioned earlier for the

4:03:50

technical assessment, we're measuring so

4:03:52

many different things. How do they

4:03:53

manage their time? They have all these

4:03:55

different tasks. How do they prioritize?

4:03:58

If somebody submits on time, but they

4:04:00

didn't submit everything, that might be

4:04:03

okay because maybe we've identified that

4:04:04

the short form video is the lowest

4:04:06

priority and the thumbnail and title

4:04:08

were just to see what their skills and

4:04:10

knowledge were there. And if they

4:04:11

prioritized and executed on the long

4:04:13

form video, maybe they win. Maybe we

4:04:16

just have more insights that they're not

4:04:17

capable of adding the ancillary benefits

4:04:20

of packaging or short form content as

4:04:23

well. And so you're able to evaluate

4:04:25

candidates on a very granular level. You

4:04:28

also get the benefit of they're all

4:04:30

editing the same exact footage and you

4:04:33

might be reviewing, you know, 10

4:04:35

different editors or in my case 200

4:04:37

different editors editing the same exact

4:04:39

footage. So what we had is about, I

4:04:41

think, 1500 different editors register

4:04:43

for it. Throughout the Thursday to

4:04:45

Monday deadline, we had about 220 250

4:04:50

editors that actually submitted their

4:04:52

work. And so then came the screening

4:04:54

time. That was gnarly. I'll tell you,

4:04:58

you get really bored of that

4:04:59

footage very fast. But the cool thing is

4:05:02

is you're able to evaluate how every

4:05:04

single person did the intro, how they

4:05:06

did the outro, and the meat of the

4:05:08

video. And so it's very easy to stack

4:05:11

different editors against each other and

4:05:13

evaluate who was the best. Now, what we

4:05:14

did is we reviewed everything. And the

4:05:18

ones who passed the technical

4:05:19

assessment, we then set up a screening

4:05:22

interview. Then that went to a technical

4:05:24

interview, then a culture, then final.

4:05:26

So essentially, we did the exact same

4:05:28

funnel as we normally would, but we

4:05:30

moved the technical assessment up front.

4:05:33

That was a very interesting way to do

4:05:35

it. Now, this doesn't work for every

4:05:37

single role. As you can probably

4:05:38

imagine, it would be almost impossible

4:05:40

to do this with, say, a videographer. So

4:05:43

the try out system only works from what

4:05:46

I have gathered. And please, I would

4:05:48

love to hear if any of you have used it

4:05:49

for other roles. Like I'm very curious

4:05:51

what I found success in just to remind

4:05:52

you is designers, editors, and

4:05:55

strategists. Anything that you can

4:05:57

provide one source piece that everyone

4:05:59

can use versus you being the source

4:06:02

piece and you can't scale to 100

4:06:05

different people, 200 people all across

4:06:07

the world. And like I said earlier, I

4:06:09

talked about hiring for culture rather

4:06:11

than skills. I actually want to make

4:06:13

this an entire section here because it's

4:06:15

that important. Think cultural fit over

4:06:18

perfection. I believe that you can teach

4:06:20

anything, but in a realistic amount of

4:06:23

time, you can teach technical skills

4:06:27

fairly easily. I I cringe when I say

4:06:29

that cuz I I know a lot of people are

4:06:31

going to hate that I say that, but I

4:06:32

truly believe you can train technical

4:06:34

skills pretty quick. However,

4:06:37

teaching hunger, empathy,

4:06:40

adaptability, these are traits that are

4:06:43

a lot harder to train, have years of

4:06:48

pattern established in their life that

4:06:50

you're going to have to overcome. Is it

4:06:52

doable? Yes. Is it worth your time and

4:06:54

money? No. And I truly believe that

4:06:56

somebody who is highly proactive, they

4:06:59

have high agency, they own everything,

4:07:02

they're hungry, they're going to get a

4:07:04

lot more done over a long period of time

4:07:07

than somebody who is technically

4:07:09

proficient but has less drive. And

4:07:11

here's an amazing example. There's an

4:07:13

individual named Jason Leva. I love this

4:07:15

man. Uh he was one of the best hires I

4:07:17

have ever made in my entire career. And

4:07:20

the crazy part is he wasn't that

4:07:22

experienced. You know, Jason, if you're

4:07:23

watching this, please hear this through

4:07:25

uh all love and everything, but I

4:07:27

actually didn't think his edit was that

4:07:29

great. I thought it was good enough and

4:07:31

he passed and went to the screening

4:07:33

call. He actually went through that

4:07:34

tryyout system. But what I noticed was

4:07:36

he was so hungry to learn and so willing

4:07:41

to figure out how to solve a problem. He

4:07:44

was a sponge. Now, most

4:07:47

directors would have written him off and

4:07:49

saw the edit and been like, "Well, that

4:07:51

wasn't in the top 10, so nah, we're not

4:07:54

going to move forward." Sure, he passed

4:07:55

the screening call, but now that I'm

4:07:56

doing the technical, ah, not a fit. But

4:07:59

what I noticed was that he was a sponge,

4:08:02

and he took feedback unbelievably well.

4:08:05

I gave him very direct feedback on the

4:08:08

interview, on his edit. I told him what

4:08:10

I really liked, and I told him what I

4:08:12

didn't like. I called out areas where he

4:08:14

made mistakes, right? there was a

4:08:16

dropped frame or there was, you know, a

4:08:18

plugin missing or something like that.

4:08:20

And Jason took that feedback so

4:08:23

graciously. He was grateful for it. He

4:08:26

thanked me for it on the call. It was

4:08:28

crazy. And so it was in that moment that

4:08:30

I realized, okay, this is the kind of

4:08:31

character that I want to bring onto the

4:08:33

team because whether it's short form

4:08:36

editing right now or eventually being a

4:08:38

videographer later, this man is willing

4:08:40

to do whatever it takes. And that's what

4:08:43

I need more than somebody who is

4:08:45

technically proficient but not adaptable

4:08:47

and not willing to hear feedback. Hire

4:08:49

for mindset and train for execution. A

4:08:52

motivated member can grow into a role.

4:08:56

However, a disengaged one will

4:08:59

definitely stay stagnant. Now, the next

4:09:02

section is prioritizing strengths that

4:09:04

match the platform. Every platform has a

4:09:06

unique content style and requires a very

4:09:09

specific type of creative thinking. If

4:09:11

you hire the wrong person for the wrong

4:09:13

platform, they might be really good at

4:09:16

YouTube shorts and Instagram reels, but

4:09:18

if you hire them to be a long form

4:09:20

editor, you might kill your engagement

4:09:24

and your success on YouTube. Now, we

4:09:26

talked earlier about how all the

4:09:28

platforms behave differently, right?

4:09:30

like you are yourself and you show up as

4:09:32

you to all these different platforms.

4:09:34

But just like if I am here filming right

4:09:37

now, then I go meet up with my mom and

4:09:39

then have dinner and beers with

4:09:41

the boys. I'm myself, but I'm going to

4:09:44

present slightly different given the

4:09:46

context and scenario I'm in, right? We

4:09:48

already discussed that. And that's how

4:09:50

the platforms behave. You show up as

4:09:52

yourself on LinkedIn just like you do on

4:09:54

Tik Tok and Instagram, but you're going

4:09:56

to talk about and emphasize different

4:09:58

things based on the context of the

4:10:00

platform you're in. You need to reverse

4:10:02

engineer those needs into individuals

4:10:05

and that's how you hire. Take Tik Tok

4:10:07

and Instagram for example. Uh these are

4:10:09

short form and fast-paced traditionally

4:10:12

platforms. And so the best fit is going

4:10:14

to be a creator who is immersed and

4:10:16

understands trends and understands

4:10:18

fast-paced editing or at least

4:10:20

understands how to continue to open and

4:10:23

close loops to retain attention. This is

4:10:26

ideally somebody who lives, eats and

4:10:29

breathes Tik Tok and Instagram. They

4:10:31

need to understand really truly what is

4:10:35

happening on the platform. What is the

4:10:37

psychology and what are the viewers and

4:10:40

consumers on that platform expecting and

4:10:42

looking for? Ideally, the 2.0 version of

4:10:45

that is they understand all of that and

4:10:48

they're able to identify tiny little

4:10:50

gaps in the market, maybe within your

4:10:53

niche that currently exist, and they're

4:10:55

able to provide you the direction of how

4:10:58

to fill it. Now, a very clear red flag

4:11:00

for somebody on Tik Tok or Instagram

4:11:02

that you're hiring is going to be if

4:11:04

they are overly focused on high

4:11:06

production value without understanding

4:11:09

what it takes to attract attention, a

4:11:11

strong hook. And ultimately

4:11:13

understanding that high quality, as we

4:11:16

discussed earlier, is not determined by

4:11:19

us on the team. We don't subjectively

4:11:22

determine what quality is. The audience

4:11:25

determines what quality is. And so if

4:11:27

somebody is overemphasizing high

4:11:28

production value and high quality

4:11:31

content, well, that's based on their

4:11:33

subjective definition of what quality

4:11:34

is, not what the audience is. And that's

4:11:36

not what we care about. Now, LinkedIn,

4:11:38

if we're looking for somebody there, the

4:11:40

best fit is probably somebody who

4:11:42

thrives in long form writing, right?

4:11:44

They probably need to know some

4:11:46

penmanship and have a little bit of

4:11:48

abilities there. But it's not going to

4:11:49

be somebody that excels at writing long

4:11:51

form articles necessarily. This is

4:11:53

somebody who is able to take a couple of

4:11:55

sentences and structure them together in

4:11:57

a way that not only hooks attention but

4:12:00

holds attention throughout the post.

4:12:01

What's going to usually work here is a

4:12:03

writer who is skilled in crafting high

4:12:05

value concise content that sparks

4:12:09

conversation. That last part is key. You

4:12:12

want to especially with how LinkedIn and

4:12:14

we talked about it earlier but I'm just

4:12:15

going to hit it again because LinkedIn

4:12:16

is one of the ones that I'm most excited

4:12:18

about this year. LinkedIn right now, if

4:12:20

you get engagement on the platform,

4:12:22

everyone sees. It's crazy. It It

4:12:25

literally is true virality. And so what

4:12:28

you want is somebody who understands not

4:12:30

only how to provide value, but how to

4:12:32

provide value that sparks conversation

4:12:34

in the comments. That is what is going

4:12:36

to drive awareness beyond just your

4:12:38

current following. And the red flag is

4:12:40

somebody who is too focused on formal

4:12:43

and corporate writing. You would bet

4:12:46

that that's what you want on LinkedIn,

4:12:47

right? It's a bunch of business people

4:12:48

in suits and No, that. That's

4:12:51

the reason why you don't want that.

4:12:52

Everybody does that. Everybody sounds

4:12:55

like they're in their elevator

4:12:57

pitch, you know, in a interview with

4:13:00

like a board full of like 10 different

4:13:02

people trying to sound all stiff and

4:13:04

proper. Nobody gives a about that.

4:13:05

The more human and the more personable

4:13:07

you are, actually, the more you will

4:13:09

stand out on that platform. And so you

4:13:11

want to make sure it's somebody who if

4:13:13

they're writing on your behalf is able

4:13:15

to understand your personality and

4:13:18

inject that into the content rather than

4:13:20

taking it out. Now, if you're hiring for

4:13:22

YouTube long form specifically, you're

4:13:24

going to be looking for an editor who

4:13:25

understands that your opening 15 to 30

4:13:28

seconds is the most crucial part of your

4:13:30

entire video. And if you don't

4:13:31

nail that, the rest doesn't matter. They

4:13:34

also need to be somebody who then

4:13:36

understands that throughout the video

4:13:38

they need to be creating tension,

4:13:40

stakes, open loops, some sort of reason

4:13:43

for the viewer to continue watching.

4:13:46

They need to understand that if you do

4:13:48

deliver all the value of the video in

4:13:50

the opening 3 minutes, why would they

4:13:52

remain for the next 10? So, they need to

4:13:54

understand good storytelling and

4:13:55

engaging editing, but they also need to

4:13:58

understand the subject matter enough

4:14:00

that they are competent and aware of the

4:14:03

subject matter so they can sprinkle the

4:14:05

value throughout the video rather than

4:14:07

giving it all in the upfront. Because,

4:14:08

as we talked about before, YouTube loves

4:14:11

watch time. And so, that's what you're

4:14:12

going to want to look for in a YouTube

4:14:14

editor. Huge red flag here is if you're

4:14:17

hiring a videographer for your YouTube,

4:14:19

if it's somebody who overemphasizes very

4:14:22

traditional styles of production. Maybe

4:14:24

you're a running gun operation doing

4:14:26

more vlog style content and they want to

4:14:30

stop every scene, every moment and

4:14:32

ensure that the lighting is perfect, the

4:14:34

composition is perfect. They want to

4:14:36

they aren't willing to use zoom lenses.

4:14:38

They only use primes. Not going to work,

4:14:41

right? You want to make sure that their

4:14:43

technical skills align with the

4:14:45

technical needs of the role. All right,

4:14:47

the next section is start lean and grow

4:14:50

intentionally. I laugh because uh this

4:14:53

is a a huge problem that I see with

4:14:55

media teams and then they have to do

4:14:57

massive layoffs. Avoid overhiring too

4:14:59

early. A small, high impact, nimble seal

4:15:02

team six style team will accomplish so

4:15:06

much more than a bloated inefficient

4:15:08

team. I believe in hiring specialists,

4:15:10

but early on these specialists need to

4:15:13

be willing to be multifunctional, okay?

4:15:16

They have to wear multiple hats. You

4:15:18

might have somebody who is specializing

4:15:20

in YouTube long form editing, but you're

4:15:21

probably going to need them to cut some

4:15:23

short clips and maybe even

4:15:25

create some thumbnails. That is okay. In

4:15:27

the beginning, that is what you're going

4:15:28

to need. And so, you need to make sure

4:15:30

that you emphasize that in the hiring

4:15:32

process. Here's an example. If you're at

4:15:34

the very beginning stages and you're

4:15:36

limited on budget, you probably need a

4:15:39

videographer and an editor, but you

4:15:40

might not be able to afford hiring both.

4:15:42

And so, you're going to hire somebody

4:15:44

who can do both. Somebody who can film

4:15:48

and edit. You gain a lot of efficiencies

4:15:50

in that. Ultimately, down the road,

4:15:52

you're going to want to send them down

4:15:53

one path or the other so that they can

4:15:56

be the specialist and you can get the

4:15:58

most out of their skill set. But in the

4:16:00

beginning, you have to have people

4:16:02

wearing multiple hats. So again, if you

4:16:04

need a videographer and editor and you

4:16:06

have a very limited budget, I recommend

4:16:08

hiring somebody who is skilled at both.

4:16:11

Now, you need to make sure you identify

4:16:12

which one is the priority. If you

4:16:14

prioritize really good filming and

4:16:17

steady hand and all that great

4:16:19

question asking. And maybe they're not

4:16:21

as good at editing, maybe that is an

4:16:22

okay concession to make at the stage you

4:16:25

were currently at. Now, why does this

4:16:27

actually matter? Like, why do we want to

4:16:29

not overhire? I mean, it seems obvious,

4:16:32

but I'm going to run through just so

4:16:33

that you really understand why you

4:16:35

should avoid this. Number one, you avoid

4:16:37

unnecessary payroll expenses before

4:16:40

proving the ROI on content. I truly

4:16:43

believe that anybody who does content

4:16:45

correctly will get an ROI literally no

4:16:47

matter what they do, even as an

4:16:48

employee. However, you might not be

4:16:50

doing it good, and you might not be at

4:16:52

the point where you can actually hire

4:16:54

enough people or the right people to do

4:16:56

it well. And if that's the case, then

4:16:59

you might be putting out content that

4:17:01

sucks and doesn't provide anything. In

4:17:02

which case, I don't know that I'd be

4:17:04

scaling your team up from there. You're

4:17:06

just going to be hiring more people that

4:17:08

are not capable at actually driving

4:17:10

awareness to your content, which means

4:17:12

you're driving your ROI down because

4:17:14

you're adding headcount and payroll, but

4:17:16

you're not adding any profitability or

4:17:18

revenue to the company from the content.

4:17:21

If you keep the team smaller and don't

4:17:23

hire too quickly, well, you also keep

4:17:26

operations nimble, making it flexible,

4:17:28

easy to pivot and move around as needed.

4:17:31

I can't tell you how many times I've had

4:17:33

to change process, priorities,

4:17:35

everything, because one, platforms are

4:17:38

constantly evolving and changing and

4:17:39

requiring new things for you to win, but

4:17:42

also your client. If you're building a

4:17:45

team for the CEO or founder, or if you

4:17:47

are the CEO and founder yourself, your

4:17:49

desired outcomes, your preferences are

4:17:52

going to change. You might really enjoy

4:17:54

doing vlogging for a while and then go

4:17:56

into a season where things are stressful

4:17:58

and you don't want to have a camera

4:17:59

around all the time and you need to make

4:18:00

more sit down direct to camera style

4:18:02

content like this. Well, you need a

4:18:05

nimble team that is able to pivot and

4:18:07

reverse engineer those needs. If you

4:18:09

have a massive bloated team, oftentimes,

4:18:12

I mean, think of it like, you know, if

4:18:14

you're turning on a dime in a little

4:18:16

speedboat, it's not going to be that

4:18:17

difficult. But if you have to turn on a

4:18:18

dime in a oil tanker, you're

4:18:20

The last benefit that I really

4:18:22

see here is there's a lot of context

4:18:24

that is developed. You allow the

4:18:26

individuals on your team to understand

4:18:29

the various functions that you have on

4:18:31

the team. Well, how is that helpful?

4:18:33

Well, one, when you bring in more

4:18:34

specialists, they're able to communicate

4:18:36

in an educated way cuz they did the role

4:18:39

at least at some capacity. So, they can

4:18:41

speak the lingo. They can talk the talk.

4:18:43

Two, they understand what any request

4:18:46

they make actually takes for the other

4:18:48

person. They know that if you're asking

4:18:50

them to edit a video that was just shot

4:18:53

this morning and edit it by the next

4:18:55

morning, you're going to be up all

4:18:58

night. A lot of people don't realize

4:19:01

that. And so I think that it's not only

4:19:04

effective in helping the team

4:19:06

communicate and work together well, but

4:19:08

you also get this benefit of if somebody

4:19:11

is sick or quits or gets fired, you have

4:19:16

people on the team that do maybe not at

4:19:18

the same level, but they understand the

4:19:20

role and how to function within it. Now,

4:19:22

as the team scales up, you're going to

4:19:26

go through this process where you take

4:19:28

these specialists who you are asking to

4:19:32

be generalists for a short period of

4:19:34

time, and you're going to move them back

4:19:36

into their specialist role again as the

4:19:38

team scales. And so, I just want to

4:19:39

share a very quick little framework for

4:19:41

you on how you go about expanding these

4:19:44

roles gradually. Step one, you're going

4:19:46

to start with the multi-roll hires.

4:19:48

Okay? So, it's going to be somebody who

4:19:50

is highly proficient at filming and

4:19:52

they're really good at editing and so

4:19:54

they're doing both of those tasks. Okay?

4:19:56

They're handling multiple tasks. Then

4:19:58

what you need to do is ensure that you

4:20:00

are documenting and defining the

4:20:02

process. You want to make sure that all

4:20:05

the workflow, every little tiny little

4:20:07

thing that this individual is doing is

4:20:09

documented and it's super clear for the

4:20:11

next person that comes in. Once you do

4:20:14

that, this videographer and editor,

4:20:16

they're highly proficient at filming and

4:20:18

good at editing. They should document

4:20:20

their whole process for editing. And

4:20:22

once you hire an editor, they no longer

4:20:24

need to edit. So, they can now focus

4:20:28

entirely on filming. They can

4:20:31

specialize. So, that leads us to number

4:20:33

three, which is specialize as you scale.

4:20:36

Once the volume starts to increase,

4:20:38

volume of output and volume of members

4:20:40

on the team, you can start to split

4:20:42

roles to improve efficiency. For

4:20:45

example, if I am an editor, but I also

4:20:48

have to jump up every two hours and film

4:20:51

with the talent I'm working for, I'm

4:20:53

losing massive efficiency in my editing.

4:20:56

Every editor that is watching heard that

4:20:59

the moment that you break out of the

4:21:00

edit, it's not like you lose that 1 hour

4:21:02

that you went to go film. you have

4:21:04

another 30 to 45 minutes of trying to

4:21:06

get back into that flow state that you

4:21:08

were in. And honestly, a lot of times

4:21:10

it's very difficult to get back into it.

4:21:12

In general, it doesn't take 30, 40

4:21:14

minutes. It might take waiting until the

4:21:16

next day. And so, anytime that you can

4:21:18

allow somebody to stay in that flow

4:21:20

state, especially an editor, a designer,

4:21:22

somebody that's doing more batch work

4:21:24

like

4:21:25

that, you gain so much efficiency and

4:21:29

what I subjectively call quality. Now,

4:21:33

in the interest of starting lean and

4:21:35

growing intentionally, a very common

4:21:38

question that comes up for people is,

4:21:39

well, do I hire full-time in-house

4:21:42

employees or do I hire contractors and

4:21:45

agencies? And so, my team and I, we

4:21:47

broke down, we actually created like a

4:21:49

whole table that we're going to walk

4:21:51

through that contrast the benefits or

4:21:55

potential downsides given different

4:21:57

scenarios, different factors that we're

4:21:58

wanting to keep in mind. And we're going

4:22:00

to compare full-time employees versus a

4:22:03

contractor or agency. And so I'm

4:22:05

actually going to read this off my

4:22:06

phone. This is something that you can

4:22:07

download if you would like. We actually

4:22:08

have a worksheet that you can go through

4:22:10

and it'll help you evaluate whether you

4:22:13

in your scenario should actually use a

4:22:16

full-time employee or hire a contractor

4:22:19

or agency. Let's dive in. So the first

4:22:22

factor that we're looking at is budget.

4:22:25

And uh this is obviously a major uh

4:22:28

concern especially for those of you who

4:22:30

are in the early days, right? You're

4:22:31

maybe a startup or you're a soloreneur

4:22:33

and you don't have a lot that you're

4:22:35

working with. This is where I'm at right

4:22:36

now. I don't have any massive budget or

4:22:38

anything and so I'm having to think

4:22:39

strategically about what I bring in

4:22:41

full-time versus contract out. For

4:22:43

full-time employees, it's a higher

4:22:46

long-term cost. Okay? You have salary,

4:22:48

benefits, training, right? If you bring

4:22:51

somebody in, you need to invest in them.

4:22:54

And the difference between a full-time

4:22:57

employee and a contractor here is you

4:22:59

don't need to be training contractors.

4:23:01

In fact, they should not require any

4:23:03

sort of training. They should come in

4:23:05

batteries included. They should be able

4:23:06

to do the role immediately. You're not

4:23:09

going to be paying for your contractors

4:23:11

to attend a workshop or uh consume

4:23:14

courses online. That's something that

4:23:15

they should be doing on their own time

4:23:17

and their own dime. Now, on the

4:23:18

contractor side for budget or contractor

4:23:20

agency, they're more cost-effective for

4:23:23

short-term projects or specialized

4:23:25

needs. Here's a great example. This very

4:23:27

course that we're working on, there's a

4:23:28

full-time employee working on it and

4:23:30

there's a contractor working on it. So,

4:23:32

behind the camera right now is Trevor

4:23:33

Odum and he is actually on our team, but

4:23:36

then we are working with an amazing

4:23:38

motion graphics artist named Michael and

4:23:40

he is a contractor because right now I

4:23:43

don't have the need for full-time motion

4:23:45

graphics. I I wish I did. that'd be

4:23:47

awesome, but that's not the

4:23:49

place that we're at right now. And so,

4:23:50

if we were to bring him on full-time, we

4:23:52

wouldn't have enough work for him

4:23:53

anyways. And so, it's far more cost

4:23:55

effective and operationally less

4:23:57

intensive to be able to just bring him

4:23:59

on on a project-by-p project basis. The

4:24:02

next factor is workload. Okay, so for

4:24:05

the full-time employee, this looks like

4:24:06

ongoing daily tasks that require their

4:24:09

full-time attention. If you don't, like

4:24:11

I just mentioned with the our contractor

4:24:13

that we're working with for the motion

4:24:14

graphics, if you don't have enough work

4:24:17

where they're doing daily tasks, then it

4:24:19

is most likely not a full-time role and

4:24:22

not necessary at this point. For

4:24:23

example, a lot of you are filming

4:24:26

content, right? But maybe you only film

4:24:27

once or twice a month. Why would you

4:24:30

have a full-time videographer if all

4:24:32

they're doing is showing up twice a

4:24:34

month to film with you in batches? That

4:24:36

to me is a great scenario where you

4:24:38

would want to hire a contractor or an

4:24:39

agency. So the workload on the

4:24:41

contractor agency looks more like

4:24:42

project based, it's flexible or it's

4:24:45

temporary work. So maybe you have a

4:24:48

scenario where you have an event coming

4:24:49

up, okay? And instead of just having one

4:24:52

videographer, you need like four

4:24:53

different people going around and

4:24:54

capturing B-roll, testimonials, filming

4:24:57

the keynotes, whatever. This is a

4:24:59

scenario where you might hire a bunch of

4:25:01

contractors or an agency to fulfill this

4:25:04

temporary work. The third factor that we

4:25:06

want to keep in mind and and use to I

4:25:08

guess determine whether or not we're

4:25:10

going to hire somebody full-time or if

4:25:11

we're going to bring on a contractor or

4:25:13

agency is expertise. Now, on the

4:25:16

full-time side, typically they have deep

4:25:18

knowledge and a long-term investment in

4:25:20

your company. Even if they don't come in

4:25:22

with like uh master level knowledge,

4:25:25

that's fine. You're going to invest in

4:25:27

them. And if they're the right culture

4:25:28

fit, as we discussed throughout this

4:25:30

whole section, they're worth it. And

4:25:31

you're going to invest in training.

4:25:33

You're going to provide them courses.

4:25:35

You're going to provide them workshops.

4:25:36

You might sit down one-on-one with them

4:25:38

once or twice a week to really pour into

4:25:40

them. And that's something that you're

4:25:42

going to get the return on because they

4:25:44

are a full-time employee working for

4:25:46

you. However, on the flip side,

4:25:49

contractors, not the case. Contractors

4:25:52

should come in as the expert. Ideally,

4:25:55

they have specialized knowledge that may

4:25:57

not be needed long term. So, a great

4:25:59

example of this is in the past what I've

4:26:02

done is hired agencies for 3 to 6 months

4:26:04

and we bring them in and we have them

4:26:07

school us, teach us on what they're

4:26:09

doing, provide us the playbooks of how

4:26:11

we can move forward without them. I

4:26:13

think of it like expedited learning.

4:26:15

You're almost paying for like a fast

4:26:17

pass to be able to move past some of the

4:26:19

clunky learning stages uh that a lot of

4:26:22

people take like 2 or 3 years to get

4:26:24

down. You're able to accomplish that in

4:26:25

potentially 6 months with a really

4:26:27

quality agency. Now, the next factor is

4:26:29

speed and agility. I have a lot of

4:26:32

thoughts on this, but first I'm just

4:26:33

going to go with what we have on the

4:26:34

table here. It takes time to onboard and

4:26:36

train an employee, right? Typically,

4:26:38

you're looking at 60 to 90 days before

4:26:41

they're really up to speed and executing

4:26:43

at the level that you're looking for.

4:26:44

The beauty though is they do provide

4:26:47

continuity and consistency. Okay? Okay.

4:26:49

So once they are onboarded in theory, as

4:26:52

long as you do a good job of retaining

4:26:53

them and you provide a good work

4:26:55

environment where they're always able to

4:26:56

grow and learn, they are more likely to

4:26:59

stick there. And so you're going to have

4:27:01

the same person working on the same

4:27:03

projects. I'm going to kind of jump into

4:27:04

it already, but the problem on the

4:27:06

agency side that I've experienced is

4:27:08

agencies do tend to have a higher

4:27:10

turnover rate. And so, for example, when

4:27:13

I've worked with YouTube agencies, what

4:27:14

you'll find is you might have like seven

4:27:18

different editors over the course of six

4:27:19

to 12 months that work on your projects

4:27:21

because they're turning through them. No

4:27:23

matter how good they are at having

4:27:25

playbooks, checklists, all that

4:27:27

there is a difference and and you start

4:27:29

to notice that it's not as consistent in

4:27:31

the quality or in the style. You might

4:27:33

not care about that. And so, if that's

4:27:34

not a factor that you give a about,

4:27:35

it. Who gives a let's just

4:27:37

hire somebody full-time in-house if you

4:27:39

have the amount of work necessary for

4:27:41

that. If we're looking for extreme

4:27:42

consistency here, I probably would not

4:27:45

recommend going the agency route. Now,

4:27:47

the benefit on speed and agility that

4:27:49

you get with the contractor or agency is

4:27:52

you do get immediate access to

4:27:54

expertise. So, unlike a 30 60 90day

4:27:58

onboarding plan with an employee,

4:28:00

agencies would be fired immediately if

4:28:02

it took 90 days for them to get up to

4:28:04

speed. they're they're just like that is

4:28:06

not the way that they function. And so

4:28:07

typically what you'll find is maybe you

4:28:09

have an onboarding call with them, but

4:28:10

then after that they're ripping. And so

4:28:13

if you do have something that you need

4:28:15

done immediately, the agency or

4:28:18

contractor route might be a better

4:28:20

solution for the short term for you.

4:28:22

Now, brand consistency, what you may

4:28:25

think of is like making sure that they

4:28:26

have the right logos, fonts, colors, all

4:28:28

that And that is important and I

4:28:30

care about that. But that's not what I

4:28:31

emphasize the most when I'm talking

4:28:33

brand consistency. I'm thinking about

4:28:35

like messaging or topics that maybe the

4:28:38

the talent we're working with have no

4:28:41

desire to ever talk about. Okay? Or

4:28:43

maybe we know as a team that there are

4:28:47

certain statements in context of what's

4:28:49

being said that are fine, but if they're

4:28:51

cut out of the context, it's going to be

4:28:53

really bad. That's something that you're

4:28:56

going to be able to reinforce and

4:28:58

establish extreme clarity on with

4:29:01

somebody that's in-house far more than a

4:29:04

contractor or agency. The reason why is

4:29:07

because not only are they constantly

4:29:09

working on projects for you, they are

4:29:11

also involved in your internal meetings,

4:29:14

okay? And so they're getting feedback

4:29:16

far more consistently than an agency or

4:29:19

contractor. So they know where they

4:29:21

stand with the content that they are

4:29:22

creating. and when they do it right or

4:29:25

when they do something that goes against

4:29:26

brand guidelines. Typically on the

4:29:29

contractor and agency side from my

4:29:30

experience on brand consistency, this is

4:29:33

one of the areas where it requires the

4:29:34

most amount of oversight. I can't tell

4:29:36

you the amount of times that an agency

4:29:38

that I've worked with over the years

4:29:39

just didn't quite get it right when it

4:29:42

came to what we were trying to do from a

4:29:44

brand positioning and association

4:29:46

standpoint. even down to simple things

4:29:47

like if the talent on camera is

4:29:49

referencing, you know, a successful

4:29:51

entrepreneur and a not successful

4:29:52

entrepreneur, they might flash up two

4:29:54

individuals that we want no association

4:29:57

with. And that happened very

4:29:59

consistently when working with

4:30:01

contractors. And the last factor in this

4:30:03

section that we're trying to use to

4:30:05

determine whether or not we're going to

4:30:06

hire somebody full-time versus a

4:30:08

contractor or agency is scalability.

4:30:10

Full-time employees typically, I

4:30:12

believe, are more scalable because they

4:30:15

are more ideal for your culture and

4:30:18

building culture and training people

4:30:20

into leadership roles. You're able to

4:30:22

scale the team up in my opinion because

4:30:24

maybe you hire somebody as a video

4:30:26

editor and over a year or two train them

4:30:28

up to be a manager and they can oversee

4:30:30

other video editors. And because of

4:30:31

that, they understand the culture and

4:30:33

the DNA of the team. They understand the

4:30:35

brand and what the preferences of that

4:30:37

brand are. And so not only are they able

4:30:39

to continue to use that and implement

4:30:42

that within their work, they're able to

4:30:43

train future members of the team. This

4:30:46

is really good for consistency and

4:30:48

scalability. Now, on the other hand, the

4:30:50

benefit of contractors on this is

4:30:53

actually not long-term scalability, but

4:30:56

they are very useful in testing out a

4:30:59

theory. For example, if right now you

4:31:02

are emphasizing YouTube, Instagram, and

4:31:04

Tik Tok, and you recognize that LinkedIn

4:31:06

is one of the platforms that you should

4:31:08

really, really around with in 2025

4:31:10

because it is the only platform right

4:31:12

now that has true organic reach. Okay,

4:31:15

that's an interesting hypothesis. I

4:31:17

would argue that you are correct, but

4:31:19

you don't totally know. And so rather

4:31:21

than going out and hiring a full-time

4:31:23

LinkedIn specialist that might cost you

4:31:25

a lot of money, what you could do is

4:31:27

take three to six months and test it out

4:31:29

with an agency or a contractor. Then

4:31:32

you're not making the high investment

4:31:34

and long-term commitment to an employee

4:31:36

and you're just doing an experiment and

4:31:38

validating whether or not this is

4:31:39

something worth investing in. And so in

4:31:42

that case, maybe we would bring on a

4:31:43

contractor to work on our LinkedIn for 3

4:31:46

4 months. and they're making the

4:31:48

content. We're tracking the performance.

4:31:49

We're tracking whether or not it's

4:31:51

generating qualified leads for us. But

4:31:53

then we're also working with this

4:31:54

contractor because they are an expert, a

4:31:56

subject matter expert in that field on

4:31:58

developing a playbook that then we can

4:32:01

use internally as our guiding light for

4:32:04

the new hire that we bring in full-time

4:32:06

once we have validated this idea. or on

4:32:09

the flip side, we find out that LinkedIn

4:32:10

was not for us and we didn't go through

4:32:13

the problem of hiring a full-time

4:32:14

employee, incurring that cost, and then

4:32:16

unfortunately having to part ways with

4:32:18

them. Now, we just went through and kind

4:32:20

of compared full-time employees versus

4:32:22

contractors and agencies, but what I

4:32:24

want to do is actually break down three

4:32:26

different phases or stages that you may

4:32:29

find yourself in and what I would

4:32:32

recommend you do. Now, I want to be very

4:32:34

clear here. This is general advice,

4:32:36

okay? I don't know what your exact

4:32:39

scenario is. So, there's a lot of nuance

4:32:42

to this. This is a good starting point

4:32:45

and a good guiding light for you. I

4:32:47

would not necessarily completely follow

4:32:49

this as doctrine. The best version of

4:32:51

this is like, I'm going to dive into

4:32:53

your team, look at everything that

4:32:54

you're doing, look at what your goals

4:32:56

are, and we're going to develop a whole

4:32:58

custom plan for you. But if we're not

4:33:00

able to do that, 99% of you we're never

4:33:02

going to be able to do that with, I

4:33:03

would use this as your starting point.

4:33:04

So what we're going to do is we're going

4:33:06

to go through three different growth

4:33:07

stages and then the recommended hiring

4:33:09

approach that is associated with each

4:33:12

stage. So stage number one is zero to

4:33:15

one year. We're a baby at this point.

4:33:17

And what I recommend we do is primarily

4:33:20

hire contractors and agencies. That way

4:33:24

we can stay lean, not invest a ton of

4:33:27

upfront cost, but also we get to test

4:33:29

our theories and test the platforms and

4:33:32

see what works best for us. I really

4:33:34

believe that there are the best

4:33:37

platforms to be on and then there's the

4:33:39

best platforms for you to be on. And so

4:33:41

what I would recommend is utilizing the

4:33:44

agency contractor method to validate,

4:33:46

are you cut out for LinkedIn? Are you

4:33:48

cut out for Tik Tok? Just because

4:33:49

everyone says Tik Tok is the best place

4:33:51

to be. Well, if you're not good in that

4:33:53

format, that Whatever format

4:33:55

you're best in and most comfortable in

4:33:57

and feel you can provide the most value

4:33:59

in, that's what you should do. Okay. So

4:34:02

here we're testing and validating those

4:34:04

theories. We're staying lean and

4:34:06

minimizing our investment. As the

4:34:08

founder, I recommend in this stage you

4:34:10

are heavily involved in the content and

4:34:13

strategy that you are making. You should

4:34:15

be shaping what this looks like. Of

4:34:17

course, you want to bring in contractors

4:34:19

and agencies that you trust and that you

4:34:22

lean on, but ultimately this is your

4:34:24

brand and this is what you are building.

4:34:27

So you should be the one that is shaping

4:34:28

what that will look like. The next

4:34:30

growth stage is kind of like years one

4:34:32

through three. Again, roughly there's a

4:34:35

lot of plus minus to this, but let's

4:34:38

just say roughly one to three years in,

4:34:40

you are in the stage where you are

4:34:42

transitioning critical roles in house.

4:34:45

So what this may look like is maybe you

4:34:48

were working with a YouTube agency for a

4:34:49

year and maybe you have realized after

4:34:51

that year, hey, YouTube is our top

4:34:53

priority. This is where 70 80% of our

4:34:55

qualified leads are coming through.

4:34:57

Well, in that case, maybe you want to

4:34:59

hire a video editor inhouse. And maybe

4:35:01

that doesn't necessarily look like

4:35:02

firing the agency. It just looks like

4:35:05

reducing their scope. So, instead of

4:35:07

them doing the editing, maybe they're

4:35:09

just doing consulting for you. So,

4:35:10

you're pairing your video editor inhouse

4:35:13

with the consulting power and the

4:35:15

knowledge and expertise and experience

4:35:18

that the agency has. The other benefit

4:35:20

in this is typically agencies offer

4:35:22

multiple services. So, a lot of

4:35:24

different YouTube agencies, for example,

4:35:26

don't just do the editing, they also

4:35:28

help with ideiation, scripting, and

4:35:31

packaging. And maybe this editor that

4:35:33

you bring in house isn't skilled at

4:35:35

those things. And so, you take the

4:35:37

editing off of the agency's plate and

4:35:39

bring that in-house, but then you still

4:35:41

have the agency doing the ideation,

4:35:43

scripting, and packaging. And so, you're

4:35:45

keeping them around for very specialized

4:35:47

skills. Now, stage number three is 3

4:35:49

plus years. And this is around the time

4:35:52

sometimes people get this earlier around

4:35:54

2 years but typically around 3 plus

4:35:56

years this is when you want to bring

4:35:57

everything inhouse. Okay. So all

4:35:59

critical roles that are high volume and

4:36:02

necessary to the business I recommend

4:36:05

bring it inhouse. Uh we just went

4:36:07

through kind of like the pluses and

4:36:08

minuses and the benefits of full-time

4:36:11

in-house employees versus contractors.

4:36:12

So I think you understand the value of

4:36:15

having an in-house team. One thing that

4:36:17

I didn't fully touch on that I think is

4:36:19

actually really worth highlighting here

4:36:20

is that when I have brought roles

4:36:22

inhouse, so previously working with an

4:36:24

agency and then I end up bringing in

4:36:26

house, the speed at which we are able to

4:36:28

accomplish and finish projects increases

4:36:30

dramatically. The level of communication

4:36:34

goes up drastically. It's literally

4:36:36

impossible for an agency to be able to

4:36:38

communicate with you at the cadence that

4:36:40

a full-time employee does because they

4:36:42

have multiple clients that they're

4:36:43

servicing, right? And a lot of these

4:36:45

agencies, their editors are overseas and

4:36:47

so they're in a totally different time

4:36:49

zone. Okay? So it changes the dynamic

4:36:51

completely. The moment that you start to

4:36:53

bring things inhouse, speed goes up like

4:36:56

crazy. Now, what I do recommend is still

4:36:59

at this stage, there are going to be

4:37:00

some agencies you're going to keep on or

4:37:02

contractors you'll keep on either for

4:37:05

very, very specialized work or access to

4:37:10

worlds that you don't have access to.

4:37:11

What do I mean by that? Well, typically

4:37:13

a media buying agency might have a

4:37:16

better relationship with Meta than you

4:37:18

do or your media buyer does because

4:37:20

maybe they're spending millions of

4:37:22

dollars a year on Meta and so they're a

4:37:24

more important client for that platform.

4:37:27

If any of you out there have ran ads or

4:37:29

done organic content consistently on a

4:37:32

platform, you know, having a

4:37:33

relationship with the rep there is

4:37:35

valuable as And so if you can't

4:37:38

get that with your full-time in-house

4:37:40

team, you may want to maintain an agency

4:37:43

purely for that relationship in case

4:37:45

something goes wrong. I also believe

4:37:46

that agencies or contractors can be very

4:37:49

useful to have in your rolodex available

4:37:51

to you so that you can scale up as

4:37:53

needed for sprints. Sometimes you might

4:37:56

have a launch where you're going to

4:37:57

triple the amount of creative output

4:37:58

that you normally have and you don't

4:38:00

want to hire full-time people for a

4:38:04

temporary need. So, you just scale up

4:38:07

temporarily with an agency and then you

4:38:09

can scale back down to what you were

4:38:10

normally doing and you don't have to

4:38:12

fire a bunch of people. Nobody likes

4:38:13

firing people. That's the worst

4:38:15

thing in the world. I would avoid it at

4:38:16

all costs. And the easiest way to avoid

4:38:19

it is scale up using contractors or

4:38:21

agencies. Hello there. Before we

4:38:23

continue on this course, I actually want

4:38:25

to inform you about something really

4:38:26

cool that my team and I are putting

4:38:28

together. We're putting together a

4:38:29

little newsletter for you. And this is

4:38:32

different than your average newsletter.

4:38:33

We're not going to be sending something

4:38:34

weekly or monthly. We're only going to

4:38:36

send you emails when we believe that we

4:38:39

have something that is truly valuable.

4:38:40

Whether it's a bite-sized nugget that's

4:38:42

going to change your perspective or a

4:38:44

crazy in-depth playbook, we only will be

4:38:46

sending you when we feel it will

4:38:48

drive massive awareness for your content

4:38:51

and scale your brand in the way that we

4:38:53

believe is best. So, if that sounds

4:38:55

interesting to you, you can go sign up

4:38:57

for it at calebston.com. If not, no

4:38:59

harm, no foul. And with that, I hope you

4:39:01

enjoy the rest of the course. Amazing.

4:39:03

We've hired all these individuals. We've

4:39:06

identified their roles. We've made it

4:39:08

clear to them. Now, we need to onboard

4:39:10

them. Okay? And I will tell you from

4:39:13

experience, a poor onboarding process

4:39:16

leads to weeks or months of wasted

4:39:18

productivity and a demotivated employee.

4:39:22

I will tell you an example. I started at

4:39:24

a role one point in my career and I

4:39:27

remember the first week I didn't have

4:39:29

any of the uh tech set up right like the

4:39:32

asauna the zooms all that none of

4:39:34

that was set up for me I didn't have my

4:39:35

work laptop and I had no expectations

4:39:38

that had been given to me no

4:39:40

deliverables that were required I didn't

4:39:42

even know what meeting cadence I should

4:39:43

be on I had no clarity and what happened

4:39:47

with no clarity extreme anxiety I was

4:39:50

constantly wondering like am I living up

4:39:52

to the expectations that my boss has. Am

4:39:54

I am I doing what is required? But how

4:39:56

can you know if you're doing that if

4:39:58

you're never informed of what is

4:39:59

required and what the expectations are?

4:40:01

On the flip side, I also had a recent

4:40:03

role where I started and I had gotten a

4:40:05

30 60 90 day plan given to me like 5

4:40:09

days before my first day. So I went into

4:40:12

day one knowing exactly what was

4:40:14

expected of me, knowing what my schedule

4:40:16

looked like. I had all the equipment

4:40:18

necessary and I was motivated to

4:40:21

do some work. So what you get is

4:40:24

if you prepare an employee and you allow

4:40:25

them to know what is expected, you're

4:40:28

going to get a highly motivated

4:40:30

workhorse. If you do not provide that,

4:40:32

you're going to get a highly anxious,

4:40:33

apathetic individual and that may only

4:40:37

last for that onboarding period, but it

4:40:39

might just carry into their entire

4:40:40

employment. So if you do a structured 30

4:40:43

6090, it eliminates confusion and sets

4:40:46

very clear expectations from day one.

4:40:49

Okay. So we're going to create that 30

4:40:51

609day plan. This is a structured

4:40:53

three-phase onboarding approach that

4:40:56

ensures new hires integrate to the team

4:40:59

smoothly and understand what the

4:41:02

they're there for. Think of the first 30

4:41:04

days as orientation and core learning.

4:41:07

Okay? They need to gather context. Yes,

4:41:09

of course they ask questions. You gave

4:41:10

them the spiel in the interview process.

4:41:12

I'm sure you sent them some about us

4:41:14

packet, but let's be real, that's all

4:41:16

That's not actually how the

4:41:18

company runs. That's not how

4:41:20

communication occurs. That's not where

4:41:22

they gain the insights on how to

4:41:23

communicate with the CEO versus the CMO

4:41:26

versus their direct manager. This is

4:41:27

when they're understanding the company

4:41:29

vision, the values, the workflows. This

4:41:32

is how the the sausage is made. This is

4:41:35

where they learn the core processes, the

4:41:36

systems. They see a content calendar,

4:41:39

asset management, maybe you use a sauna

4:41:42

or ClickUp to manage everything. They're

4:41:44

getting to understand and get a feel for

4:41:46

how you operate. I often like to give

4:41:49

smaller tasks. I don't want just, you

4:41:53

know, knowledge acquisition to occur

4:41:55

during this phase. I do want to give

4:41:56

them tasks. One, because I want to make

4:41:58

sure that they are able to execute. You

4:42:00

know, technical assessments are great,

4:42:02

but you really learn a lot in the first

4:42:03

30, 60, 90 days about an employee. I

4:42:06

want to make sure they're doing that,

4:42:07

but I also want to give them wins and

4:42:10

momentum that they can build upon. I

4:42:12

truly believe if you nailed the opening

4:42:14

30

4:42:15

days, you have such a better employee

4:42:19

employer relationship. Also, don't just

4:42:22

leave them on an island to themsel and

4:42:24

let them just figure it out. There's

4:42:26

very rare cases where that is the right

4:42:28

move. Maybe if that's what the role is

4:42:30

actually like all the time, okay, sure,

4:42:32

you could justify that to me. But if the

4:42:34

role is not going to be like that, make

4:42:36

sure that you do regular check-ins with

4:42:37

this individual. Ensure that they

4:42:39

understand what they're working on.

4:42:40

Understand what is happening on a

4:42:42

meeting. They understand who's in the

4:42:44

meeting, what the process looks like,

4:42:46

what the context of this project is.

4:42:48

Anything that is necessary for them to

4:42:50

be able to operate efficiently, you

4:42:52

should be providing in the check-in.

4:42:54

Also, you can be asking them how are

4:42:56

they feeling? Are they confused? Do they

4:42:58

feel overwhelmed, underwhelmed? Do they

4:43:00

need more information? Do they need to

4:43:02

chunk things down a little bit? This is

4:43:04

where you get to get a feel and a gauge

4:43:06

of where they're at and how they're

4:43:07

responding to these opening 30 days. For

4:43:09

example, if you hire an editor, this

4:43:11

might look like them shadowing your

4:43:13

senior editor or some experienced team

4:43:15

member and ultimately they're reviewing

4:43:18

high-erforming content from the past.

4:43:20

Maybe this editor they're shadowing is

4:43:22

walking them through their top five uh

4:43:24

YouTube videos of all time and

4:43:26

explaining why they got to that level

4:43:29

and how they're implementing those

4:43:31

frameworks and those structures to

4:43:33

future videos. And maybe potentially

4:43:35

it's working on internal projects or

4:43:38

rough cuts of an edit that you review

4:43:41

internally and that don't have high

4:43:43

stakes of going out publicly. All right.

4:43:46

Then you have the 60-day, the next 30

4:43:49

days. Well, what are we doing there?

4:43:50

This is where we want to have them

4:43:52

taking more ownership. What does that

4:43:54

look like? Well, they begin executing

4:43:56

independently on their core

4:43:58

responsibilities. They're no longer just

4:44:00

doing small tasks or just shadowing.

4:44:03

They're actually owning tasks of their

4:44:05

own. They're also developing their own

4:44:08

workflows and systems within the team.

4:44:11

We have teamwide process and workflow,

4:44:13

but then within that, individuals have

4:44:15

their own way of operating. Every editor

4:44:17

has a different way that they set up a

4:44:19

file, right? Some editors like to go

4:44:21

through all the A-roll and then start

4:44:23

adding music and then B-roll and blah

4:44:25

blah blah. Some of them like to go

4:44:27

section by section and they go A-roll,

4:44:29

B-roll, music, graphics, and then on to

4:44:32

the next section. Allow them to build

4:44:34

their own workflow and utilize that for

4:44:37

the greatest efficiency that they can

4:44:38

have. In these next 30 days, at the 60

4:44:40

mark, you're wanting to also analyze

4:44:43

their work. Look at how they're going

4:44:45

about their workflow, the process, their

4:44:47

communication, and the final output, and

4:44:50

give them feedback. This is where you

4:44:52

can start to reinforce the good things

4:44:55

and help correct the things that aren't

4:44:57

as effective or helpful for the team or

4:45:00

process they're working on. An example

4:45:02

here is a an editor would probably be

4:45:05

editing full YouTube videos, uploading

4:45:08

them, and then we would be reviewing the

4:45:10

performance and giving them feedback

4:45:12

accordingly. And then the last 30 days,

4:45:14

this is the 90-day mark, right? So we

4:45:15

have the 30, the 60, and the 90. And

4:45:17

this is chunked down into 30 days at a

4:45:19

time. And this is the last section of

4:45:21

their official onboarding. We are fully

4:45:24

integrating them into the team and

4:45:26

giving them a high level of

4:45:28

contribution. No longer are they working

4:45:30

on small tasks or owning their own task.

4:45:32

They're owning the big tasks. whatever

4:45:35

the number one most important thing that

4:45:38

we listed on the responsibilities on

4:45:40

their job description, they are now

4:45:41

owning that entirely. This also looks

4:45:44

like owning it entirely with minimal

4:45:46

supervision. Okay? So, instead of me

4:45:49

coming in and checking in on them during

4:45:51

the edit five or six times, I might

4:45:53

check in with them at the beginning like

4:45:54

I would any editor, maybe a midway point

4:45:57

and then upon completion. We're also now

4:46:00

at the point where they're demonstrating

4:46:02

actual results, like true impact they're

4:46:05

having against their KPIs that we're

4:46:07

holding them accountable for. You know,

4:46:09

if they're a YouTube editor, watch time.

4:46:11

Is the watch time at least average, if

4:46:14

not better than average, what our normal

4:46:16

performance is, or if it's slightly

4:46:18

below, are they improving the watch time

4:46:21

each video they're doing? I always am

4:46:23

looking for rate of progress. Are they

4:46:25

at least improving? If they're not where

4:46:26

we want them to be, are they moving in

4:46:28

that direction? And finally, at the end

4:46:31

of the 90 days, you want to actually

4:46:34

conduct a 90-day review. Sit down with

4:46:36

them, walk through everything that

4:46:37

they've done, tell them all the wins

4:46:39

they've had, all the things that you

4:46:40

love, the way they communicated, the way

4:46:42

Sarah said to John, you know, the

4:46:44

feedback on the edit, she gave it so

4:46:46

well. Great job, Sarah. Reinforce that

4:46:49

and make sure they continue to do those

4:46:50

things. But also, there may be things

4:46:52

that you noticed in the opening 90 days

4:46:54

that weren't as desirable or as

4:46:56

effective, and you want to correct

4:46:58

those. The last thing you want to do is

4:46:59

just ignore a problem and just hope that

4:47:01

it goes away. They don't go away, they

4:47:03

get bigger. And so, at this 90-day

4:47:05

check-in, this is where you want to give

4:47:07

them some very real feedback. If there's

4:47:10

something that they cannot continue

4:47:11

doing, tell them now. If you do not tell

4:47:14

them now and they continue doing it,

4:47:15

that is not their fault. That is your

4:47:17

fault. It is your job at this point to

4:47:20

inform them of any behavior changes that

4:47:22

need to occur. So, as an example, at

4:47:24

this point, if we have a content

4:47:26

strategist at 90 days in, they should be

4:47:27

identifying high performing content and

4:47:30

what we should double down on or how we

4:47:32

should reformat it for another platform.

4:47:33

They should be proposing new content

4:47:35

ideas, not just reviewing what is

4:47:37

working. They should be innovating and

4:47:39

coming up with fresh new ideas. And they

4:47:42

should be optimizing distribution for

4:47:44

maximum reach. and they should be able

4:47:45

to sit down with you and take feedback

4:47:47

on what they were doing right on all of

4:47:49

those and what they need to change on

4:47:51

all of those. So now that we have the

4:47:53

306090, well that's amazing, but that's

4:47:56

not the only part of onboarding. That is

4:47:58

a piece of the pie. That is a tool in

4:48:01

the belt, but it is not the entire belt.

4:48:03

So if we want to make onboarding

4:48:05

seamless and effective, one, we want to

4:48:07

provide a clear plan before day one. So

4:48:09

this is sending onboarding materials.

4:48:11

This is like a company handbook, a

4:48:13

vision deck, a a strategy deck, whatever

4:48:15

that looks like for you. And the 306090

4:48:17

that we just went through. Number two is

4:48:19

you're going to assign a mentor or

4:48:21

onboarding buddy. Often times, if you

4:48:23

don't assign this, they will make their

4:48:26

own friend there, right? And that's

4:48:27

great, but you want to make sure to also

4:48:29

intentionally pair them with somebody

4:48:31

who is going to really help them in the

4:48:33

role that they have. Ideally, somebody

4:48:35

who has a lot more context on the

4:48:37

organization and team and how they

4:48:39

function. typically a more senior

4:48:41

individual. This allows them to speed

4:48:43

ramp their learning but also have

4:48:45

somebody that is a guaranteed or

4:48:47

verified point of contact for when they

4:48:49

have questions because in the beginning

4:48:51

we have a multitude of questions and

4:48:53

typically we're afraid or embarrassed to

4:48:55

ask them. If you help assign this

4:48:57

individual and you clarify upfront that

4:48:59

this is what they are here for is to

4:49:01

help you ask questions or help you

4:49:03

answer questions and that there's

4:49:04

nothing wrong with asking questions.

4:49:06

it's actually encouraged to well then

4:49:08

you set them up for success and instead

4:49:11

of them sitting there trying to solve a

4:49:12

problem for 2 hours they might solve it

4:49:14

in 5 minutes asking Sarah what the

4:49:16

answer is. Now number three is to

4:49:18

schedule regular check-ins. You're not

4:49:19

going to have a pulse on how this person

4:49:21

is doing and how it's going if you're

4:49:23

not checking in with them regularly and

4:49:25

getting an update. I prefer typically in

4:49:28

the first month to do multiple check-ins

4:49:30

per week. So maybe it looks like instead

4:49:32

of one 30 minute meeting, it's three

4:49:34

10-minute meetings, Monday, Wednesday,

4:49:36

Friday, end of day. And you're just

4:49:38

checking in to see what was the most

4:49:39

interesting thing that you learned

4:49:40

today. What was uh the most confusing

4:49:42

thing that happened this week that I can

4:49:43

maybe answer? What roadblocks are in

4:49:45

front of you that I can bulldoze through

4:49:47

to make your job easier. This is also an

4:49:49

incredible opportunity to celebrate wins

4:49:51

and reinforce great actions. If they're

4:49:54

a new hireer and you're on a call, a

4:49:56

brainstorm meeting, let's say, and

4:49:57

you're beating up a YouTube video idea,

4:50:00

and they contribute a thought, even if

4:50:02

it's not a good one, but they actually

4:50:03

speak up, man, immediately give them

4:50:06

daps for that. Like, give them all the

4:50:09

love in the world for that because

4:50:11

that is the kind of action and behavior

4:50:13

you want to encourage, especially a new

4:50:16

hire. I remember there was a hire that I

4:50:17

made a couple years ago and I want to

4:50:19

say like day one he was sitting in a

4:50:22

meeting where nobody asked his opinion

4:50:24

on it. He volunteered it and in some

4:50:28

organizations they might not like that.

4:50:29

I immediately stood up and gave the dude

4:50:31

a high five. I was like this is

4:50:32

incredible. You're day one. You're

4:50:34

nervous as hell. You don't know anybody.

4:50:36

Nobody knows you. Nobody knows your

4:50:37

background or skill set and you're

4:50:39

already contributing to the overall

4:50:41

discussion. That's what we're hiring

4:50:43

people for. We're hiring people to

4:50:44

contribute, not sit and be a fly

4:50:47

on the wall. And number four is kind of

4:50:48

a bonus. I don't believe it's fully

4:50:51

necessary, but it's definitely very

4:50:53

helpful, but if you're resource

4:50:55

constrained, I would save this for when

4:50:56

you're at a bigger scale. Number four is

4:50:58

building an onboarding portal or

4:51:00

resource hub. And this can be fancy

4:51:03

like, you know, using some software to

4:51:05

automate the onboarding or it can be as

4:51:07

simple as a Google Drive folder

4:51:09

that has your vision deck, your strategy

4:51:11

deck, context on the team, SOPs,

4:51:13

playbooks, video tutorials on workflows,

4:51:16

Q&A document with the founder or CEO to

4:51:19

give more context on the organization.

4:51:20

Anything that you feel would help make

4:51:23

this person's life within the org easier

4:51:26

can live in this hub. And again, it can

4:51:29

be a very simple Google Drive folder. It

4:51:31

doesn't have to be anything fancy and

4:51:32

complex. Just like in the hiring

4:51:34

process, we want to define a role

4:51:36

clearly. We also want to ensure that

4:51:38

once somebody is onboarded, we also make

4:51:41

sure to continually define their role

4:51:44

clearly because as we know, roles

4:51:46

evolve, process evolves, needs evolve on

4:51:49

the team. And so as those evolutions

4:51:52

occur, you should be continually

4:51:54

updating the role description. And one

4:51:57

of the biggest mistakes I see on teams

4:52:00

is overlapping responsibilities without

4:52:03

clarity around who is owning what. And

4:52:06

so what ends up happening there is if

4:52:08

two people both think that they own the

4:52:10

same task, often times they assume the

4:52:13

other person's going to do it and then

4:52:14

nobody does it. And so what you want to

4:52:15

do is if you're going to have two people

4:52:17

working on a task, make sure it's very

4:52:19

clear what they're each owning and what

4:52:21

the expectations of output are from each

4:52:24

of them. hold them accountable. I like

4:52:26

to set KPIs for accountability, which

4:52:29

removes ambiguity in the performance of

4:52:32

their job expectations. Here's an

4:52:34

example. If you have a community manager

4:52:37

and their task is to analyze metrics,

4:52:40

right? They're supposed to look at how's

4:52:42

engagement, are we getting enough

4:52:43

impressions, are we driving enough

4:52:46

traffic to our website, etc., etc. But

4:52:48

then you also ask editors to do the same

4:52:51

thing. One, I mean, it it seems

4:52:53

incredibly inefficient and pointless,

4:52:55

but two, eventually you get to the point

4:52:57

where they're doing redundant work, and

4:52:59

what I have observed is they both get

4:53:01

frustrated by it, and then they both

4:53:03

don't do the task, and then nobody does

4:53:05

it, and it's not getting done. And so,

4:53:07

there are going to be tasks that you're

4:53:09

going to have overlap. That's

4:53:10

impossible, right? Like, there's going

4:53:11

to be tasks where multiple people have

4:53:13

to own different micro tasks that ladder

4:53:15

up to the big one. I understand there's

4:53:17

nuance to it, but I would really

4:53:19

encourage you if you are going to have

4:53:20

two people tackling the same task, make

4:53:23

sure there is clarity on what is

4:53:25

expected from each of them. So, we went

4:53:27

through all of this onboarding but

4:53:29

what does this actually mean for us?

4:53:32

What does this give us as a result?

4:53:34

Well, I'll tell you. You get faster ramp

4:53:36

up time. People are actually going to

4:53:37

get up to speed and able to execute on

4:53:39

their role at a high level much, much

4:53:43

faster. I can't tell you early on in my

4:53:45

career how many different roles that I

4:53:46

took that it took me like four or five

4:53:48

months to actually get to a point where

4:53:50

I was effectively creating for the team

4:53:52

that I was on. Not necessarily my fault,

4:53:54

but just due to a lack of a structured

4:53:56

onboarding process that the organization

4:53:59

did not have in place. Number two, the

4:54:02

most important thing, stronger

4:54:04

retention. It costs a lot of money to

4:54:06

lose an employee, like two and a half

4:54:08

times what they actually costed you

4:54:10

originally. Employees who feel supported

4:54:12

and cared for and actually have clear

4:54:15

understanding of what is expected of

4:54:17

them stay longer and perform better.

4:54:21

Number three is you typically get more

4:54:23

ownership and initiative. Clarity from

4:54:25

day one fosters confidence and

4:54:27

independent problem solving. This is

4:54:29

somebody who if a problem comes up

4:54:30

they're not just immediately running and

4:54:32

tapping on your shoulder and being like

4:54:33

Sarah how do I solve this? Right? They

4:54:35

are somebody who is going to if they

4:54:36

come to you they're going to come to you

4:54:38

with proposed solutions. So the key

4:54:40

takeaway here is I want you to change

4:54:42

the way you think of onboarding. It's

4:54:43

not about introducing process and

4:54:45

introducing team members. It's about

4:54:47

setting up new hires to win

4:54:50

early and often which benefits both them

4:54:54

and yourself. All right, we have defined

4:54:58

what we need. We've defined the roles.

4:55:01

We've hired the individuals and we have

4:55:03

onboarded them effectively.

4:55:05

Congratulations. You are killing

4:55:07

it. But now we have to develop and

4:55:10

retain this high performing team, right?

4:55:12

We brought all these amazing individuals

4:55:14

in, but we need to make sure that we

4:55:16

keep them and we give them an

4:55:18

environment that makes them want to stay

4:55:19

and feel like they are growing and

4:55:21

empowered rather than stifled and capped

4:55:24

at their growth. A strong team is not

4:55:26

just about hiring the right people,

4:55:27

though that is very, very important.

4:55:29

It's also about developing them into

4:55:31

leaders, lining up opportunities with

4:55:34

their individual long-term goals, not

4:55:37

just the companies, and ensuring that

4:55:38

they never stop growing. Always giving

4:55:40

them opportunity to further their growth

4:55:43

and see that where they are right now,

4:55:46

the ceiling is always moving up. So,

4:55:49

they're never limited with the amount of

4:55:51

growth they can have within your team.

4:55:53

If your team is not evolving, you're not

4:55:55

scaling, you're just maintaining. One of

4:55:58

the first things I can recommend in

4:55:59

trying to retain employees and keep them

4:56:00

on your team and keep them feeling

4:56:02

satisfied and like they're growing is

4:56:05

creating a culture of ownership. A lot

4:56:07

of individuals that have creative teams

4:56:10

out there really believe heavily, I

4:56:13

would argue too heavily in SOPs and

4:56:15

checklists. Now they are very important,

4:56:17

right? Checklists ensure quality

4:56:18

control. SOPs ensure that we are

4:56:20

operating in a very similar function and

4:56:23

similar way when operating on a process.

4:56:25

Okay, so this is super important. The

4:56:27

problem is if you build an army, I like

4:56:31

to call it a checklist army. You're

4:56:33

building individuals that only follow

4:56:35

instruction and don't take ownership for

4:56:38

themselves. I believe that high

4:56:39

performing teams thrive when they take

4:56:42

real ownership of their role. Instead of

4:56:44

waiting for direction from you, they are

4:56:46

taking action. They're solving problems.

4:56:49

They're innovating on content and ideas

4:56:52

themselves. If you are the only one

4:56:54

making decisions, you don't have a team.

4:56:56

You just have a bunch of assistants that

4:56:58

are running around doing your bidding.

4:57:00

You have what I call a topdown approach

4:57:03

rather than a bottom up approach. So,

4:57:05

here is how you encourage ownership on

4:57:08

your team instead of doing what we all

4:57:10

want to do because we care about

4:57:12

everyone on our team. I mean, every

4:57:14

person I've ever hired, and whether or

4:57:15

not you you with this, I don't give

4:57:17

a I love them to death. I care

4:57:20

about every person I've ever hired an

4:57:21

insane amount. And so what sometimes

4:57:24

occurs then is you want to solve

4:57:26

problems for them. You want to make

4:57:28

their life easier, but that them

4:57:31

up. So what you want to do to create a

4:57:33

culture of ownership is you actually

4:57:34

want to not solve their problems. When

4:57:37

they come to you with a question or a

4:57:39

problem, instead of being like, "Here's

4:57:40

the answer. Here's the solution right

4:57:42

away." You put it back on them. Ask

4:57:45

them, "Well, how would you handle this?

4:57:47

If I got hit by a bus right now, how

4:57:49

would you handle this?" If I was out

4:57:50

sick for 3 weeks, how would you handle

4:57:52

it? If I went on vacation for two

4:57:53

months, what would you do to solve this

4:57:56

problem? Oftentimes, they know the

4:57:58

answer or they're creative enough to be

4:58:01

able to solve it. Typically, what you're

4:58:03

finding is they might be being just

4:58:05

slightly lazy or more than likely

4:58:09

they've been in a previous environment

4:58:10

where their leader did solve all their

4:58:12

problems because their leader didn't

4:58:15

trust them. And if you start noticing

4:58:17

that they just bring a bunch of problems

4:58:19

to you, encourage them to stop bringing

4:58:22

problems and start bringing solutions.

4:58:24

So if they're constantly asking you how

4:58:26

to solve something, encourage them to

4:58:29

move from asking you how to solve to

4:58:31

being like, "Which of these two or three

4:58:33

solves would you recommend I try?" That

4:58:35

is going to be far better. But then

4:58:37

again, I would recommend that you put it

4:58:39

back on them and say, "Well, which of

4:58:40

the three do you think is going to be

4:58:42

most effective?" And third, give them

4:58:44

autonomy with accountability. Meaning,

4:58:47

empower them to make a mistake. If

4:58:50

you're going to ask them, how would you

4:58:51

go about solving it? They present the

4:58:53

idea. You might know that's not going to

4:58:55

work. But if it's not absolutely

4:58:57

missionritical, I would encourage you

4:58:59

let them fail. They will learn so much

4:59:02

more from that than from always getting

4:59:05

it right based on what you say. And the

4:59:08

crazier part, and a lot of people don't

4:59:10

realize this, but they are paying

4:59:12

attention to what you are doing. They're

4:59:14

seeing here that you trust them and you

4:59:17

trust them despite a potentially not

4:59:20

correct or not ideal outcome. When you

4:59:23

do this, you empower them to gain

4:59:26

confidence and continue to solve

4:59:28

problems. And when they realize that

4:59:30

there's not a consequence to them

4:59:33

getting it wrong and that you're just

4:59:35

going to encourage them to go about it

4:59:38

differently next time, they have no

4:59:41

fear. And when you don't have fear, that

4:59:43

is when creativity thrives. Creativity

4:59:46

is not only important for creating

4:59:47

content, it's important for solving

4:59:49

problems. As an example, I once had a

4:59:52

creative director who was technically

4:59:54

incredible, right? A a brilliant mind,

4:59:57

an incredible strategist. But I'm gonna

4:59:59

be honest with you, they lacked a lot of

5:00:02

personal skills and ability to read

5:00:04

another person in the moment. And so a

5:00:06

lot of times when we would be filming

5:00:08

with the talent we worked for, this

5:00:10

individual would ask me, "How do I

5:00:12

handle this situation?" And a lot of

5:00:14

times it was in the moment, right? And

5:00:16

so instead of them just like verbally

5:00:17

asking me, they were texting me. And I

5:00:19

started to notice that I was answering

5:00:22

it always. I was solving it for them.

5:00:24

And what I realized was three months

5:00:26

into doing that, they had not improved.

5:00:28

They always listened to me. They acted

5:00:30

on what I said, but they kept asking

5:00:33

questions at the same rate. And so what

5:00:35

did I do? I started saying, "Well, how

5:00:38

would you handle this?" And sometimes

5:00:41

this person would say something that I

5:00:43

knew was going to piss the talent we

5:00:45

were working with off, like that,

5:00:48

potentially interrupting the entire

5:00:51

shoot, and maybe we wouldn't actually

5:00:52

get a video that day. short-term bummer,

5:00:55

long-term gain. What ended up happening

5:00:58

is he learned from his mistakes and

5:01:02

started to be able to figure out how to

5:01:04

solve the problem on his own to the

5:01:06

point now where he is leading the

5:01:08

initiative for that individual and knows

5:01:11

how to engage with them and handle any

5:01:13

problems that come up very effectively

5:01:16

without texting me. Now, we've

5:01:18

identified that we want to build and

5:01:20

empower these leaders, right? Well, how

5:01:22

do we develop people as a leader? I

5:01:24

believe that teaching is actually an

5:01:27

ultimate hack here. Now, not in maybe

5:01:29

the way that you're thinking. I love

5:01:32

team training, but I don't like to lead

5:01:35

it myself. Not all the time. Of course,

5:01:36

I'm going to do team trainings here and

5:01:38

there. Uh it's important to hear from

5:01:39

your leader and to hear straight from

5:01:41

the horse's mouth. But I actually

5:01:43

believe that the best version of this is

5:01:44

when you empower the team to do team

5:01:47

trainings. Okay? There's so many

5:01:49

benefits to this and we're going to go

5:01:50

through many of them. So, why does this

5:01:52

work? Well, I think a lot of us have

5:01:55

probably heard the traditional saying,

5:01:56

but it's traditional for a reason. It's

5:01:58

true. You learn a lot by teaching. And

5:02:02

so, giving people on your team the

5:02:04

ability to train others and teach others

5:02:07

allows them the opportunity to learn

5:02:10

more about that, to really ingrain that

5:02:14

learning into their repertoire, into

5:02:17

their utility belt. It teaches mastery.

5:02:20

If you can't actually explain something,

5:02:23

you don't fully understand it. You might

5:02:25

be able to do the action. An example is

5:02:28

editors. A very early entry-level editor

5:02:31

who isn't super experienced or

5:02:33

technically proficient if you ask them,

5:02:36

why did you cut this video in this

5:02:38

cadence, right? Why did you go 12

5:02:40

frames, 36 frames, 12 frames, 36 frames

5:02:44

as a cadence, in a sequence? I got

5:02:46

really technical there, so please just

5:02:47

ignore it if you don't speak editor

5:02:48

lingo. But if that's the case and you

5:02:50

ask them why they did that, a lot of

5:02:53

beginners and novice editors will say it

5:02:55

felt right. And that's a totally

5:02:56

acceptable answer, but it's not a

5:02:58

technically sound one. An editor who

5:03:00

truly understands would say, I was

5:03:02

training the audience to understand and

5:03:04

expect the cadence that I was going to

5:03:06

edit in because the next scene was going

5:03:09

to be very dramatic and I was going to

5:03:10

break that pattern. And by training the

5:03:12

audience to get used to cuts on that

5:03:14

pattern, when we deviate from the

5:03:16

pattern, it emphasized that moment. That

5:03:19

would be an editor who is very

5:03:20

technically proficient, experienced, and

5:03:22

understands the why behind why they did

5:03:25

the cut. And the magical third thing

5:03:27

that you get here, which is absolutely

5:03:29

incredible, is you reveal hidden

5:03:32

strengths and passions. I can't tell you

5:03:35

how many different times that I'd have

5:03:36

somebody on one of my teams, they would

5:03:37

do a training on something that I had no

5:03:39

idea that they were really proficient in

5:03:42

and were passionate about. You learn all

5:03:43

these interesting things, like people

5:03:45

that love sound design, and all of a

5:03:46

sudden you realize, oh yeah, that's

5:03:47

right. All your edits are really good

5:03:49

with sound design. Or you discover that

5:03:51

somebody's really passionate about

5:03:52

storytelling, and you realize, huh, now

5:03:54

that they think about it, all of your

5:03:56

videos actually do follow a very, very

5:03:58

specific and strategic storytelling

5:04:00

framework. Holy And then you get

5:04:03

to spread that information to the rest

5:04:05

of the team. And what happens is they

5:04:07

start to develop their brand within the

5:04:11

team. And so if somebody does a

5:04:13

presentation on storytelling, for

5:04:15

example, and George, another editor, has

5:04:18

a question about it, they're going to go

5:04:20

to that person. And so what that does is

5:04:22

increase efficiency. Rather than sitting

5:04:24

and trying to solve a problem on your

5:04:25

own, you know who on the team is the

5:04:27

subject matter expert to go to to solve

5:04:30

the problem with. Now, how do you

5:04:32

actually implement this? Well, I would

5:04:34

recommend that you conduct a weekly

5:04:35

training. Rotate between the different

5:04:37

members of your team on who leads the

5:04:39

training weekly. I also recommend

5:04:41

setting up what is called like a

5:04:43

mentorship loop. This is where you take

5:04:44

somebody that is more senior on the team

5:04:46

and you pair them with a more junior

5:04:48

level individual. This doesn't mean uh

5:04:51

seniority as far as tenure, but as far

5:04:53

as skill set. So maybe you have a

5:04:56

videographer that's been on the team for

5:04:57

a year and then you hire a brand new

5:05:00

videographer who is far more technically

5:05:02

proficient. I would recommend pairing

5:05:04

them together. The cool byproduct of

5:05:06

that is the new videographer, she can

5:05:10

help train him on technical

5:05:12

proficiencies and he can help train her

5:05:15

on proficiencies on how to operate

5:05:17

within the organization and how

5:05:18

processes work. You get a win-win on

5:05:20

both sides. Now, oftentimes when you're

5:05:22

hiring an employee, we're humans, so

5:05:23

we're selfish. We're thinking about

5:05:25

what's in it for us. What are we trying

5:05:27

to get out of this person? How can we

5:05:29

maximize the returns from this human?

5:05:31

But what I would recommend is gain

5:05:33

understanding on what their long-term

5:05:36

career goals are and start to line up

5:05:38

opportunities that you give them with

5:05:40

those long-term goals. If they want to

5:05:43

be in a place of leadership or they want

5:05:45

to hold an executive role and they're an

5:05:47

editor right now, well, something that

5:05:49

would be very good for you to do is give

5:05:51

them those training opportunities so

5:05:53

they can gain the skill of communication

5:05:55

and presenting. Often times, especially

5:05:58

with creative teams, there's this like

5:06:00

myth out there that, oh, creatives don't

5:06:02

want to talk to anybody. they just want

5:06:03

to be locked in a room and d and I

5:06:06

believe that that is true but my belief

5:06:08

is the why behind that is because

5:06:10

they've been trained they've been told

5:06:13

that's how they are they work for an

5:06:15

organization and the organization never

5:06:17

gives them the opportunity to

5:06:18

communicate with clients or with the

5:06:20

whole team they never give them

5:06:21

presenting opportunities because they

5:06:24

say well creatives don't like to do that

5:06:26

so we're not going to give them the

5:06:28

opportunity whatever their desired

5:06:29

outcome is for their career it is your

5:06:32

job if you want to hold on to them for a

5:06:34

long time to make sure that you give

5:06:36

them opportunities to grow towards that.

5:06:39

If you have somebody on your team that

5:06:40

has expressed what they want to

5:06:42

accomplish and what you are doing and

5:06:44

the opportunities you're providing them

5:06:45

are actually going in the opposite

5:06:47

direction, what you're going to have is

5:06:48

somebody who becomes very dissatisfied

5:06:51

with their role and will want to leave

5:06:53

at any opportunity they have. Stop being

5:06:56

like most leaders and start knowing what

5:06:59

your people what your team wants. This

5:07:01

is why creative teams lose great people.

5:07:04

It's usually not because of like the

5:07:05

work output and stuff. It's because they

5:07:07

no longer see themselves growing towards

5:07:10

where they want to be. In fact, often

5:07:11

times they see themselves growing away

5:07:14

from where they're wanting to be. And

5:07:15

that is the exact opposite of what a

5:07:17

human is going to prefer and choose to

5:07:20

do because ultimately, like I said at

5:07:22

the top, we are all selfish and we want

5:07:24

to accomplish what we want to

5:07:25

accomplish. Make sure you align the work

5:07:27

and opportunities you give your team

5:07:30

with what they want to accomplish. So, I

5:07:32

recommend doing this by conducting

5:07:34

one-on ones. And here are a couple of

5:07:36

great questions that I love to ask

5:07:38

during a one-on-one. Question number

5:07:39

one, very, very basic and obvious, but

5:07:42

most of you don't ask it. What's your

5:07:44

long-term career goal? Shocker. If you

5:07:47

find that out, the amazing thing is you

5:07:50

can give them opportunities that move

5:07:51

them towards that that also serve the

5:07:54

company. Where do you see yourself after

5:07:55

this? Do you see yourself at another

5:07:57

company? Do you see yourself starting

5:07:59

another company? Do you want to jump to

5:08:00

a different industry? Are you wanting to

5:08:02

experiment with different roles? What is

5:08:03

it that you're wanting to accomplish

5:08:04

directly after this? You've already

5:08:06

asked what their long-term career goal

5:08:07

is, but between then and now, what do

5:08:10

you see? And third, what skills do you

5:08:12

want to develop? Is there anything that

5:08:14

you've been interested in? Right? If

5:08:16

they're a video editor, but they're

5:08:18

really passionate about motion graphics,

5:08:19

how cool would it be to be able to give

5:08:21

them more opportunities? Maybe you're

5:08:22

not able to make them a full-time motion

5:08:24

designer because that's not what's

5:08:25

required on your team for the content

5:08:27

you're producing. But maybe what you can

5:08:28

do is say, "Well, I mean, it would be

5:08:29

cool if we made our lower thirds a

5:08:31

little bit more fancy and we did some

5:08:33

cool transitions and maybe we got a

5:08:35

little bit crazier with how we animate

5:08:37

text." Okay, cool. You're giving them an

5:08:40

opportunity to hone in on the skill that

5:08:43

they care about most and where they're

5:08:45

wanting to go. And then what you're

5:08:47

going to get as a byproduct of that is

5:08:49

them sticking around a lot longer. So

5:08:52

the goal here is ultra simple. Make sure

5:08:54

you align their growth with what they're

5:08:57

doing daily. If they feel like they're

5:08:59

just checking boxes and doing tasks,

5:09:02

they will eventually check the out.

5:09:04

A really good example of this is I had

5:09:06

somebody who was at a manager level on

5:09:09

one of my teams that really expressed in

5:09:12

the opening like literally in the

5:09:13

interview process expressed that they

5:09:15

eventually wanted to be a CEO and they

5:09:17

wanted to uh have a pretty large

5:09:19

organization that they ran and at this

5:09:22

point they were at a manager level and

5:09:24

so what did I do? I started to give them

5:09:27

more opportunities to oversee the team

5:09:29

or a section of the team entirely. So,

5:09:32

not just a manager level, but I gave

5:09:34

them a lot of the responsibilities that

5:09:36

I had without necessarily giving them a

5:09:38

director title right away. One, just to

5:09:41

prove that they can do it and make sure

5:09:42

that we were putting them in the right

5:09:43

spot, but I wanted to give them the

5:09:45

opportunity to start to hone in on

5:09:48

skills that were necessary and more

5:09:50

importantly to be able to identify

5:09:52

deficiencies they had that they needed

5:09:54

to work on to eventually get to the

5:09:56

point where they would be a CEO. Now,

5:09:58

your jackof alltrades, your generalists

5:10:01

or your specialists who are willing to

5:10:04

generalize, that's going to work in the

5:10:05

early days. And it's actually not only

5:10:07

going to work, it's necessary. You can't

5:10:09

hire specialists entirely from day one,

5:10:12

unless you know, you just got unlimited

5:10:14

money and really deep pockets. But even

5:10:15

then, I wouldn't advise doing that. But

5:10:17

eventually, you get to a point where

5:10:19

specialists are the way that you're

5:10:21

going to actually drive real results,

5:10:23

right? We talked in the content section

5:10:24

about specializing content to specific

5:10:27

platforms. We talked about how in the

5:10:28

beginning you make content like you

5:10:30

might make a short and then you

5:10:33

distribute that on all the different

5:10:34

platforms. YouTube shorts, Instagram

5:10:36

reels, Tik Tok, Facebook reels, LinkedIn

5:10:38

video tab. But the best case version of

5:10:40

this is you take that same asset, that

5:10:43

same raw footage and re-edit it, remake

5:10:46

it contextual to each platform

5:10:48

specialization. Well, the same thing is

5:10:50

going to happen with your team. In order

5:10:52

to make that content special to the

5:10:54

platform, you're going to need the

5:10:56

individual to specialize in that

5:10:58

platform. Here's why this matters. When

5:11:00

you move from the generalist workflow to

5:11:03

a specialist workflow, you get

5:11:05

individuals who execute at much higher

5:11:08

levels. They gain massive efficiency by

5:11:11

doing the same thing or relatively same

5:11:13

thing over and over and over rather than

5:11:16

hat jumping. They really iron out all

5:11:20

the kinks, all the weird inefficiencies.

5:11:22

They develop beautiful workflows on this

5:11:25

because they're doing it all day every

5:11:26

day. Also, this leads to mastery, which

5:11:30

reduces the amount of revisions and back

5:11:32

and forth that you have to have with

5:11:34

your team. You would not believe how

5:11:37

effective it is and efficient it is if

5:11:39

you can eliminate two rounds of

5:11:41

revisions across all your editors on

5:11:43

your team. Sure, in a week that was

5:11:45

nice, but add up all that time over a

5:11:47

year and you're saving weeks of your

5:11:49

time. The benefit for the individual is

5:11:52

that specialists have way more long-term

5:11:55

career value. They are able to earn far

5:11:59

more throughout their career because

5:12:00

they are a specialist. Companies will

5:12:02

pay far more for that than somebody who

5:12:05

is decent or proficient at everything.

5:12:08

So, by you investing in them as a

5:12:10

specialist, you know, the reality is is

5:12:12

unfortunately there's all these people

5:12:14

that we love that we have on our team

5:12:15

and we want them forever, but they're

5:12:17

not going to stay with you forever. The

5:12:18

the nature of a career and of a job is

5:12:21

that there is an expiration date most of

5:12:23

the time. It is my goal if you join my

5:12:25

team, I want to set you the up so

5:12:27

that when you go to the next spot, you

5:12:29

are 10 times better than you could have

5:12:31

ever imagined. And the way you do that

5:12:32

is you promote specialization. they will

5:12:35

typically be far happier and earn way

5:12:38

more throughout their career. Here's an

5:12:40

example of this, and this is pretty

5:12:41

typical that I find in creatives, but

5:12:45

specifically short form editors for

5:12:47

whatever reason. Trevor on my team, I

5:12:49

hired him about three three and a half

5:12:51

years ago now. And I remember we brought

5:12:54

him on as a short form editor. about I'm

5:12:57

probably going to get this wrong, but

5:12:58

let's call it 9 to 12 months in, he

5:13:00

started getting to the point where he

5:13:02

had mastered how we do short form and

5:13:05

was absolutely crushing it and started

5:13:08

noticing the editors that were working

5:13:10

on long form content and how sexy that

5:13:13

looked and how interesting and shiny

5:13:15

that was. And around 14 to 16 months in,

5:13:18

he started vocalizing to me how he was

5:13:21

considering wanting to move from being a

5:13:25

short form editor to a long form editor.

5:13:27

Now, a little bit of context for you is

5:13:29

at this point, we had reached a serious

5:13:33

level of mastery to where he was the

5:13:35

go-to guy on the team for shorts. In

5:13:38

fact, so much so that every other short

5:13:40

form editor whenever they ran into an

5:13:42

issue would go to Trevor to help solve

5:13:45

the problem. And so what I proposed to

5:13:48

Trevor is two different paths. I said,

5:13:50

"Dude, like you're an A player. You're a

5:13:53

gangster. I want to keep you around and

5:13:55

happy. So I'll move you over to long

5:13:57

form if that's what you want." Now, it

5:13:59

won't happen overnight because we are a

5:14:00

business and we have needs, but we can

5:14:01

transition you if that's what you want.

5:14:03

The way this will work is if you move

5:14:05

over to long form, you're going to go to

5:14:07

the bottom of the totem pole. You're

5:14:09

going to the very bottom of the ladder.

5:14:11

Okay? Like there's already some serious

5:14:14

gangsters over there and you're not as

5:14:16

experienced in it. So, you're going to

5:14:17

be starting from zero. Now, on the flip

5:14:20

side, you could continue down this

5:14:22

editing short form path. Right now,

5:14:24

you're the top dog. And I see very soon

5:14:27

in your future you managing all of the

5:14:31

short form editors. not only being the

5:14:32

person that they come to with their

5:14:34

problems and helping them solve and the

5:14:35

one who always ends up having the most

5:14:37

viewed clips, but you actually manage

5:14:39

them. Now, a little bit more additional

5:14:41

context. This was young as

5:14:43

He was 22 when we were having this

5:14:45

conversation. A 22-year-old managing

5:14:48

editors that were like six, seven years

5:14:50

older than him potentially. This was a

5:14:52

crazy crossroads for him. And I told

5:14:54

him, I said, I believe that if you

5:14:56

specialize, you will go into a place of

5:14:58

leadership that there's not a world

5:15:01

where you'll get there if you go over to

5:15:03

YouTube. That will take years for you to

5:15:05

establish here. We're already 2 months

5:15:08

out from this. And if you go up to that

5:15:10

level, then eventually if you want to do

5:15:13

a lateral move over to long form, you

5:15:15

move over there in a totally different

5:15:17

position. And so you're not starting

5:15:18

from zero. You're starting from a place

5:15:20

of leadership. it's a completely

5:15:22

different position for you to take. And

5:15:24

so he chose to stick with short form.

5:15:26

Now, we gave him some long form edits

5:15:29

here and there because he's a creative

5:15:30

guy and he wanted to do it to the best

5:15:32

of my ability. Whenever somebody on my

5:15:35

team vocalizes an interest or something

5:15:37

they're passionate about and want to do,

5:15:38

I want to do my best to give them that

5:15:40

opportunity. That's just how I like to

5:15:41

roll. But we focused on short form. And

5:15:44

guess what? He not only was promoted to

5:15:48

senior editor, he was then promoted to

5:15:49

lead editor. So he was promoted the most

5:15:52

out of anybody on the team and he was

5:15:56

managing three different editors at the

5:15:58

age of 22 and 23. It was absurd.

5:16:03

Okay, he only got that because he chose

5:16:05

to specialize. And now we're at a point

5:16:08

in his career where he is starting to

5:16:09

expand and be more of a generalist

5:16:11

again. And so the way that this will

5:16:13

most likely work is he'll have a couple

5:16:15

of years or a season of time where he

5:16:18

does more activities and then he'll

5:16:21

focus again and he'll pick probably one

5:16:23

lane or two that he goes more narrow and

5:16:26

gains more mastery on. It's very similar

5:16:28

if you notice to the accordion framework

5:16:30

or method that I use for content, but

5:16:33

you can do the same thing with your

5:16:35

career. Another thing that I would

5:16:36

highly encourage you to do is not only

5:16:38

utilize your team members to educate and

5:16:41

train each other, but invest in

5:16:44

strategic education opportunities for

5:16:46

your team. For example, if there is a

5:16:48

workshop on YouTube retention editing

5:16:51

that you can pay for with somebody who

5:16:54

you know worked really closely with Mr.

5:16:55

Beast, for example, I would highly

5:16:57

recommend that you invest in that. And

5:16:59

then what you do is instead of you

5:17:01

taking that course, you assign one or

5:17:04

two of your team members to do it.

5:17:05

Here's the pro tip. Don't just have them

5:17:07

go and attend and consume the workshop

5:17:09

or the course. Have them then turn it

5:17:12

into a team training that they present

5:17:15

to the rest of the team. Again, we've

5:17:17

already gone over this helps them retain

5:17:19

the information far more, helps them

5:17:21

develop mastery, and then they're able

5:17:23

to share all of those insights and

5:17:24

information with the rest of the team

5:17:25

rather than hogging it all for

5:17:27

themselves. So, we've talked about doing

5:17:29

regular check-ins, but what does that

5:17:30

look like? Well, it looks like running

5:17:32

effective one-on- ones. I believe that

5:17:33

if you only check in when something's

5:17:35

going wrong, you've already lost.

5:17:37

Consistent, structured feedback is what

5:17:39

keeps people from checking out. It's

5:17:41

what keeps people engaged and feeling

5:17:43

like this is an area where I'm growing

5:17:45

and my leadership cares about me and

5:17:48

cares that I'm actually developing and

5:17:50

growing rather than just staying

5:17:52

stagnant and letting me rot. In

5:17:54

order to do this, you need to run

5:17:55

effective 101 ones. So, here is how I

5:17:58

recommend you go about running effective

5:18:01

one-on- ones. Number one, talk about the

5:18:04

workload and blockers. How's your

5:18:06

workload look right now? What's slowing

5:18:08

you down? Do you need any extra

5:18:09

resources or support? Is there anything

5:18:11

currently getting in the way of you

5:18:13

accomplishing your job? Can I bulldoze

5:18:15

through any roadblocks to make your job

5:18:18

easier? Revisit their long-term goals.

5:18:20

You're crushing this thing. How do we

5:18:22

set you up for the next step? What is it

5:18:23

that you've been wanting to learn but

5:18:25

haven't had the time to invest in? Are

5:18:26

there any interests that line up with

5:18:28

your long-term goals that we're not

5:18:30

currently leveraging right now that

5:18:32

we're not giving you opportunities to

5:18:33

gain skill in that maybe we can

5:18:35

implement that would be effective for

5:18:37

our content? I had a content strategist

5:18:39

who was unbelievably good at running Tik

5:18:42

Tok, ideulating, and creating a lot of

5:18:44

engagement on that platform. They had

5:18:47

expressed interest in being a creative

5:18:48

director. And so I started giving them

5:18:51

opportunities to begin developing bigger

5:18:54

campaigns and presenting those

5:18:56

campaigns. Not just developing them, but

5:18:58

presenting them to myself and to the

5:19:01

talent that we were filming with. The

5:19:03

reason why this happened though was in

5:19:04

our regular one-on- ones, I was asking

5:19:07

them, "Well, okay, you've come in,

5:19:09

you're killing it as a strategist here.

5:19:11

You own this platform. You've told me

5:19:13

you want to be a creative director.

5:19:14

Right now, none of what you're doing is

5:19:17

really lading up to that. you're very

5:19:19

much an individual contributor here. And

5:19:21

so what we did is in our 101, we

5:19:22

developed a plan of how they were going

5:19:24

to start taking on bigger tasks that

5:19:26

involved more people. So when you're

5:19:28

developing a campaign and pitching a

5:19:29

campaign, you're not thinking about just

5:19:31

your sole contribution, you're thinking

5:19:33

about how the entire team feeds into

5:19:36

that campaign because it was a

5:19:37

multiplatform approach. And in doing so,

5:19:39

what we allow for is not only for them

5:19:41

to gain the skills of thinking

5:19:43

strategically of how to involve other

5:19:45

people, but how to persuade other people

5:19:48

to get involved and how to think about

5:19:50

workflow and process, ultimately lading

5:19:52

up to their long-term goal and vision of

5:19:54

being a creative director. None of this

5:19:56

would have happened if we didn't

5:19:58

actually do regular check-ins to see,

5:20:01

are they actually feeling like they're

5:20:03

moving closer to their desired outcome?

5:20:05

and am I following what I preach and

5:20:08

actually giving them opportunities to be

5:20:10

able to hone in those skills. So, here

5:20:12

are the final takeaways on this section.

5:20:13

Developing a team that grows with you.

5:20:15

Number one, push ownership down. If

5:20:18

you're making every decision, you don't

5:20:20

have a team. You have a bunch of

5:20:22

assistants. Let them start to own the

5:20:25

process and solve their problems. Number

5:20:28

two, make leadership a habit. Teaching

5:20:30

and leading trainings should be part of

5:20:32

the job, not your job, their jobs. Okay?

5:20:36

Typically, this is an afterthought. You

5:20:37

want to make this a priority. Number

5:20:40

three, tie their growth to the company's

5:20:42

growth. Let them see how what they're

5:20:44

doing contributes to the overall growth

5:20:45

of the company and the team. Especially

5:20:47

with content teams, a lot of times

5:20:50

they're like the weirdos in the cage in

5:20:52

the corner. It's like, don't feed the

5:20:53

crazy creatives, right? No, you want to

5:20:55

show them how what they're doing is

5:20:57

leading to the revenue and profitability

5:20:59

that your organization has. Number four,

5:21:01

go deep, not wide. As soon as you can,

5:21:04

promote specialization. This is

5:21:05

beneficial for you and your team as well

5:21:08

as them, the individual. This makes them

5:21:11

far more valuable to any future

5:21:13

employer. And number five, none of this

5:21:15

is going to happen. You're not going to

5:21:16

be able to measure progress if you don't

5:21:18

do structured check-ins. So have the

5:21:20

one-on ones. Give them feedback. Ask

5:21:22

them for feedback on how you're doing as

5:21:24

a leader. If you choose not to make time

5:21:27

for feedback, you'll eventually have to

5:21:28

make time for hiring. If you create a

5:21:31

culture of ownership, of growth, and

5:21:33

something where they know where they're

5:21:35

headed, and they actually feel like the

5:21:37

opportunities they're getting are lining

5:21:39

up with their career goals, you're not

5:21:41

just going to have a team of employees.

5:21:44

You're going to have a team that wants

5:21:45

to build and can build with you. All

5:21:48

right, the final section on building

5:21:50

your team is building a strong team

5:21:54

culture. This is so important. I

5:21:56

will not be able to emphasize it enough,

5:21:59

but I'm going to do my best. I'll tell

5:22:00

you this, a good team culture is not

5:22:02

built by accident. A lot of team

5:22:04

cultures are built by accident, but a

5:22:05

good one is not. It's shaped by

5:22:07

intentional decisions that you make

5:22:09

every day through leadership, actions,

5:22:11

and how you communicate with the team.

5:22:14

And if you do it right, it's not just a

5:22:15

buzzword that everyone likes to

5:22:17

talk about on Instagram to sound like a

5:22:19

thought leader. It actually becomes the

5:22:21

operating system of how your team works

5:22:23

and how you make decisions. This is how

5:22:26

you grow. In building this strong

5:22:29

culture, you need to define and then

5:22:32

once you've defined, you need to

5:22:33

reinforce the core values. A strong

5:22:36

culture starts with clear core values

5:22:39

that guide your hiring, your decision-m,

5:22:42

and your day-to-day behavior. These are

5:22:44

not just words up on a wall or

5:22:46

that exist on your website. These are

5:22:48

literally what you live by and how you

5:22:51

decide what you will and will not do.

5:22:53

So, here's how to reinforce your core

5:22:55

values once you have established them.

5:22:57

Make sure you hire based on alignment

5:22:59

with those core values, not just

5:23:01

alignment on skill set. Again, like we

5:23:03

said earlier, skills can be trained.

5:23:05

Values very, very hard to change. Number

5:23:08

two, recognize and reward actions that

5:23:10

reflect company values. One of the best

5:23:12

ways to do this is to publicly celebrate

5:23:14

team members who are actively upholding

5:23:18

the values that you've defined as a

5:23:20

company. And this can look like a

5:23:21

message in in Slack, shouting somebody

5:23:23

out in front of the whole team. This can

5:23:25

look like during a full team meetup

5:23:27

recognizing them and giving them a

5:23:28

gift card or an award. There's

5:23:31

so many different ways to do this, but

5:23:33

we all know the feeling when you are

5:23:35

publicly recognized for something that

5:23:37

you did well. It feels good and

5:23:39

it makes you want to do more of it. And

5:23:41

number three, don't be the

5:23:42

leader that says all this and does

5:23:44

completely different. Those are the

5:23:45

worst. They breed no trust and everyone

5:23:48

eventually wants to leave that team

5:23:50

because they know that they are part of

5:23:53

horseshit. That's just the reality. And

5:23:55

there's a lot of these leaders out

5:23:56

there. The majority of people that lead

5:23:58

a company preach these core values but

5:24:01

don't actually uphold them themselves.

5:24:03

Lead by example. I remember a really

5:24:06

good story actually is um back in my uh

5:24:09

church days, I was on a worship team.

5:24:11

The worship team is like the band that

5:24:13

plays the music before the sermon

5:24:14

happens. And I remember the youth pastor

5:24:17

said something so powerful to me and it

5:24:19

stuck and it it's how I've thought of

5:24:21

myself in any leadership role to date.

5:24:23

Caleb, when you are up on stage playing

5:24:26

bass in the worship team, everyone in

5:24:28

the youth group is looking at you as an

5:24:30

example. And whatever you do, they're

5:24:33

going to do 10 times. And how I apply

5:24:35

that to leadership is if I am slow to

5:24:38

respond, they're going to be slower to

5:24:40

respond. If I show up late to meetings,

5:24:43

they're going to show up really late to

5:24:45

meetings. If we're a remote work

5:24:46

environment and I show up on calls all

5:24:48

the time in my PJs, guess what they're

5:24:50

going to do? Show up in their PJs. And

5:24:52

maybe that's fine in your company

5:24:53

culture, but maybe it's not. Whatever

5:24:55

you do, they're going to do times 10.

5:24:57

Lead by example. If you have a team that

5:25:00

is operating in a way that you do not

5:25:02

like, take a look at yourself and how

5:25:04

you're operating as the first point.

5:25:06

More than likely, you are leading them

5:25:08

by example in the wrong way. And just

5:25:11

because you're the leader doesn't mean

5:25:12

that you can hold yourself to a

5:25:13

different standard. If anything, you

5:25:15

need to be the one that holds the

5:25:17

standard and sets it and maintains that

5:25:19

bar as high as possible. So, for

5:25:22

example, maybe contrary to some of the

5:25:24

like, you know, hardcore examples I've

5:25:27

been using here, Patagonia has a really

5:25:29

beautiful team culture. They prioritize

5:25:31

environmental responsibility, integrity,

5:25:33

and work life balance. And guess what?

5:25:36

They actually do it. So, here's

5:25:38

how they reinforce those core values.

5:25:39

They hire for alignment, right? They

5:25:41

prioritize candidates who are passionate

5:25:43

about sustainability and outdoor

5:25:44

activism. That's the DNA of the company

5:25:47

and the brand. And so they want to make

5:25:49

sure that the people that work on it

5:25:52

also are in alignment with those values.

5:25:54

Number two is they recognize and reward

5:25:56

employees. Employees who contribute to

5:25:58

the environmental causes or develop

5:26:00

innovative solutions for sustainability

5:26:03

are actually publicly celebrated and

5:26:05

even receive grants to further their

5:26:07

initiatives whether it's within or

5:26:09

outside of the organization. And for

5:26:11

leading by example, their founder sets

5:26:14

the standard by literally running the

5:26:16

company with the same principles that he

5:26:18

lives by. Giving 1% of sales to the

5:26:21

planet. He even closes the office on

5:26:23

powder days to give employees the

5:26:25

opportunity to go serve or go skiing.

5:26:27

And he treats his work like it's a

5:26:29

mission, not just an activity that he's

5:26:31

doing to get a paycheck. Now, the next

5:26:33

point here is to be transparent about

5:26:36

decisions. You're never going to have a

5:26:37

scenario where everyone agrees with

5:26:39

every decision that you make. That is

5:26:41

okay. But what I would recommend is

5:26:43

trying your very best to provide them

5:26:45

the understanding of why you made the

5:26:48

decision. The quickest way that leaders

5:26:50

lose trust is keeping their team in the

5:26:53

dark when there's a lot of changes

5:26:55

occurring. So, here's what transparency

5:26:57

actually looks like in leadership. If a

5:26:58

project gets canled, especially last

5:27:00

minute, explain why and how it impacts

5:27:02

the bigger picture. I remember one time

5:27:04

having an editor who had been working 13

5:27:07

hours a day on a project for probably 5

5:27:08

or 6 days straight. Huge edit. She had

5:27:11

put so much effort into it. It was an

5:27:14

incredible piece. But the person we were

5:27:16

editing it for didn't like it. But it

5:27:18

sucked for this editor. And instead of

5:27:20

me just cancing the upload and not

5:27:22

giving them the why, I explain to them

5:27:25

how we want to create a an environment

5:27:29

for the talent we're working with where

5:27:31

they trust us. And the way that we earn

5:27:33

that trust is if there is a piece of

5:27:34

content that they don't like and they

5:27:36

don't want to be put out, we abide by

5:27:38

that. We honor that. If we do that, they

5:27:41

are going to feel more comfortable

5:27:42

opening up and revealing more and being

5:27:44

more transparent and vulnerable with

5:27:46

their emotions in future content because

5:27:48

they know if they don't like it, it's

5:27:51

not going to go out. But in that

5:27:52

scenario, rather than just leaving her

5:27:54

in the dark and being like, "Hey, I know

5:27:55

you spent 6 days, 13 hours a day working

5:27:58

on this and now last minute I'm coming

5:27:59

in and cutting this." I explained the

5:28:01

why of why we were cutting it and why

5:28:04

this impacts future content and how

5:28:06

it'll make our team more effective

5:28:08

moving forward. Number two is own your

5:28:10

mistakes. Man, if I could say this one

5:28:12

like 20 times in a row, I would. I can't

5:28:14

tell you how many times that I've had

5:28:16

leaders in my life that make a mistake

5:28:18

and just brush it off or acknowledge it

5:28:21

as it's like, "Oh, well, that was part

5:28:23

of the plan. That was intentional. We

5:28:25

meant to do that all along." Everyone

5:28:27

sees through your They already

5:28:30

know that you weren't intentionally

5:28:32

trying to make that mistake. That was

5:28:34

not part of the plan. Don't around

5:28:35

and try and make yourself posture

5:28:37

yourself to be smarter than you are.

5:28:39

Just to own it when you're wrong. The

5:28:42

amount of times that you're going to

5:28:44

gain respect from people when you do

5:28:45

that is zero. When you actually own your

5:28:48

mistake and you admit it to the team,

5:28:50

the amount of respect you gain is

5:28:52

infinite. It's unmeasurable. I am not in

5:28:56

any way perfect. Very much flawed. But I

5:28:58

really always try to do my best. When I

5:29:01

something up, even when it's small,

5:29:03

I immediately try to own it with the

5:29:05

team. I try to be the first person to

5:29:07

call it out because we've all been in

5:29:08

the scenario where somebody messes

5:29:10

something up and you're on a group call

5:29:11

and you're all kind of like vaguely

5:29:14

hinting at what happened, but not I want

5:29:16

to be the person that immediately says,

5:29:17

"No, I this up. I can't believe I

5:29:19

did it. It caused all these problems.

5:29:21

Here's how we're going to move forward."

5:29:22

And lastly, I highly recommend

5:29:24

communicate pivots as soon as you can.

5:29:28

Don't wait until the last minute. A lot

5:29:30

of leaders, I think, procrastinate on

5:29:32

this conversation because they're afraid

5:29:35

of how the team is going to respond. If

5:29:36

you have to make some big pivot in how

5:29:38

the team is going to operate, in output,

5:29:41

in process, in cadence, whatever, it's a

5:29:43

freaky thing. Like, humans get used to

5:29:46

it. We're creatures of habit, right? And

5:29:48

so, when you come in to the team and

5:29:49

say, "We're going to do things

5:29:50

completely differently." It sucks. Do it

5:29:53

immediately. The sooner that you

5:29:56

do it, the more time you give your team

5:29:57

to be able to digest this and accept the

5:30:00

fact that they're going to have five

5:30:02

times the amount of videos needing to go

5:30:03

out per week rather than telling them

5:30:05

the week before that you're going to do

5:30:07

it. Ultimately, the theme you're

5:30:08

noticing here is transparency. Be more

5:30:10

transparent with your team. Share more

5:30:12

with them. The more that you trust them,

5:30:14

the more that they will return the favor

5:30:15

and trust you. Another great thing that

5:30:17

you can do as a leader is pay attention

5:30:19

to what your team cares about. If

5:30:21

somebody on your team mentions the fact

5:30:22

that they love Legos, maybe you

5:30:24

take note of that and on their birthday

5:30:26

you send them the Millennium Falcon uh

5:30:28

Lego set, right? Like something absurd

5:30:30

like that that shows that like you care

5:30:32

about them outside of work and you pay

5:30:35

attention to what they care about and

5:30:37

are passionate about beyond just

5:30:39

editing. For example, another thing that

5:30:41

I love to do that I think is very

5:30:42

contrary to the majority of leaders is

5:30:44

if one of my team members mentions to me

5:30:47

that they're sick, rather than being

5:30:49

skeptical and not believing them and

5:30:50

assuming that they're just trying to,

5:30:52

you know, cash in the day, take the day

5:30:53

off, I actually like to go a really far.

5:30:57

I like to send them soup and bread or a

5:31:01

pack of juices from like Prest or

5:31:03

something of that nature. I want to show

5:31:05

them that I care about them because I

5:31:07

do. It's not just an act. It's actually

5:31:09

just taking what is in here in my heart

5:31:11

and putting it external. And this is

5:31:14

amazing because if they're truly sick,

5:31:16

cool. You're helping them get better.

5:31:18

You show that they care and you give

5:31:20

them the freedom to be able to take the

5:31:23

day to relax and rest rather than being

5:31:25

anxious the whole time. And on the flip

5:31:26

side, if they are that very unique

5:31:28

individual that's lying, they're going

5:31:29

to feel really guilty about it

5:31:31

and probably not want to do it the next

5:31:32

time. And so either way, you win. And

5:31:35

lastly, I believe that you inspire

5:31:38

loyalty in your team by providing them

5:31:41

opportunities to grow. We're humans.

5:31:43

We're selfish. We want to look out for

5:31:46

our self-interest and what we get out of

5:31:48

it. And that's okay. So, make sure that

5:31:51

on your team, you provide individuals

5:31:54

the ability to scratch their selfish

5:31:57

itch and grow. Ultimately, the best

5:31:59

teams aren't just efficient, they're

5:32:01

invested in the mission. And this only

5:32:03

happens when people see a future for

5:32:05

themselves within the organization. And

5:32:07

they only see a future for themselves

5:32:09

within the organization if they see

5:32:11

continual growth. So here are three

5:32:13

different ways that you can help build a

5:32:16

culture of growth. Like I've previously

5:32:17

said, but I'm going to emphasize it

5:32:19

right now. Make sure to tie what

5:32:21

individuals are doing to how the company

5:32:24

is growing. Make sure every single team

5:32:26

member sees how their individual

5:32:29

contributions lead to the company's

5:32:31

growth. Number two, check in regularly

5:32:34

on their career goals and aspirations.

5:32:36

Ensure that they are actually growing.

5:32:39

We talked about that earlier, but what's

5:32:41

amazing about doing that is the

5:32:43

byproduct is they are loyal as to

5:32:46

you if you actually genuinely care. Why

5:32:49

would they want to leave? Why would they

5:32:51

leave somebody who is experienced

5:32:53

further in their career, understands a

5:32:55

lot of the landmines they're going to

5:32:56

have to navigate through their career,

5:32:58

and that actually cares about their

5:32:59

growth, and wants to see them reach

5:33:01

their full potential and their goals.

5:33:04

Nobody's going to leave that. And

5:33:05

thirdly, we haven't really touched on

5:33:07

this. Give people stretch opportunities.

5:33:10

Push them. Make them uncomfortable. Give

5:33:12

them opportunities that they would not

5:33:15

imagine on their own that they could

5:33:17

accomplish. What this does is one, it

5:33:20

gives them opportunity to grow. Cool.

5:33:22

Amazing. But it also shows them that you

5:33:24

trust them. Trust begets trust. When you

5:33:28

show your team that you trust them, they

5:33:31

will show you in return trust to you.

5:33:34

Like I've said, I try to ask every new

5:33:37

hire on any team that I'm running, what

5:33:40

do you want to accomplish in your

5:33:42

career? What is your career goal? And

5:33:44

this isn't just blowing smoke. It's

5:33:46

literally how we tailor projects and

5:33:48

opportunities for the individual working

5:33:50

on the team. This accelerates their

5:33:52

growth, accelerates their loyalty, and

5:33:56

it makes them want to contribute more

5:33:58

and help other people on the team

5:34:00

realize their goals as well. One element

5:34:03

of building a strong team culture is

5:34:06

building an effective culture. Typically

5:34:08

on creative teams, you have a lot of

5:34:11

individuals that are individual

5:34:13

contributors. They're makers. And often

5:34:16

times in organizations, those makers get

5:34:19

because people set up random

5:34:22

meetings throughout the day. For a lot

5:34:24

of individuals, a meeting is no big

5:34:27

deal. You hop on and then you got the

5:34:28

next meeting. Maybe you have a 30-minute

5:34:30

gap. Okay, cool. I'll do some like

5:34:31

random little assa tasks, send some

5:34:33

emails, whatever. If you're a creator,

5:34:35

you're a maker, that ruins everything

5:34:38

because your whole goal is to get into

5:34:41

the flow state. And if you get into the

5:34:43

flow state and you're editing and time

5:34:45

is nothing, it's non-existent and you're

5:34:47

just killing it. And then all of a

5:34:49

sudden, ding, that Google calendar

5:34:52

notification says meeting in 10 minutes.

5:34:54

Well, boom, done. It's over. Then you

5:34:56

hop onto the call. Amazing. Awesome.

5:34:58

Call happens. And then you try and get

5:35:00

back in the edit. It's going to take you

5:35:02

30 to 45, maybe even upwards of an hour

5:35:05

to get back into that same state that

5:35:06

you were in before. And so what I

5:35:09

recommend you do for your team culture

5:35:12

is implement what Paul Graham created

5:35:15

which is the maker manager schedule. And

5:35:17

basically what it is is it identifies

5:35:19

that there are two different types of

5:35:21

individuals within an org. You have

5:35:23

makers and managers. Managers are

5:35:25

typically people that are managing teams

5:35:28

and they get done by having

5:35:31

meetings. Meetings actually are

5:35:34

literally integral to their role. If

5:35:37

they don't have meetings, they're not

5:35:38

getting anything done. On the flip side,

5:35:39

a

5:35:40

maker, meetings are their enemy. All the

5:35:43

editors and creatives watching this are

5:35:45

like nodding their heads. Their

5:35:46

heads are going to roll off their neck

5:35:47

right now. They're like, "Yeah, meetings

5:35:49

suck. Half the time I don't even

5:35:51

contribute. I don't even get information

5:35:53

that is necessary other than for 5

5:35:54

minutes of the call." And then the other

5:35:56

25 minutes was completely unnecessary.

5:35:58

The issue is there's no problem with

5:36:00

either. Neither one is right or wrong.

5:36:03

The problem is when either one tries to

5:36:06

function within the other one's setup.

5:36:08

Okay? So when a maker gets pulled into a

5:36:12

manager schedule or when a manager gets

5:36:14

pulled into a maker schedule. Now

5:36:16

typically within organizations like I

5:36:18

said you have both. It's not like you

5:36:20

have a team only of makers or only of

5:36:22

managers. Neither would be possible. So

5:36:24

what I recommend doing is creating maker

5:36:28

manager schedule. Now, the way that I

5:36:31

typically like to operate, and you can

5:36:33

mold this to whatever works best for you

5:36:35

and your team, but the way that I

5:36:36

operate is the first half of the day is

5:36:39

your maker time. So, for me, this looks

5:36:42

like usually 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. I'm

5:36:45

in maker mode. This is when I am working

5:36:48

on drafting things like this, or maybe

5:36:52

I'm writing a script for a future video,

5:36:54

or I'm reviewing a script for a client

5:36:56

and giving them notes on how they could

5:36:58

improve it. That is my maker time. And I

5:37:00

do my best to not interrupt anybody on

5:37:03

my team and pull them into a meeting

5:37:05

during maker time. That is reserved.

5:37:08

That is holy and sacred time for them to

5:37:11

do their thing. Now, you do need some

5:37:14

manager time. Meetings, unfortunately,

5:37:16

have to occur. I say unfortunately cuz I

5:37:18

think now I'm in a season where I'm a

5:37:19

little bit more in a a maker uh mode

5:37:22

than manager as much, but they're

5:37:23

important and they have to occur. So,

5:37:25

typically the way I run my schedule is

5:37:27

12 to 5 is my manager time. This is

5:37:30

where I try to schedule all my meetings.

5:37:32

Now, do I hold to this perfectly? No.

5:37:34

One of our partners is in the UK and so

5:37:37

because of that time difference, there's

5:37:39

one day a week where I have a meeting at

5:37:40

8:00 a.m. But if you are intentional and

5:37:43

you create this system, you empower the

5:37:46

team to be able to follow that. You

5:37:48

empower your editors, your designers,

5:37:50

your strategists to be able to actually

5:37:52

have five, six, seven hours of

5:37:55

uninterrupted flow work. It's incredible

5:37:59

the level of efficiency that you get.

5:38:01

Also, the team loves it. They

5:38:03

they prefer it so much. And typically,

5:38:05

what you'll find is they actually end up

5:38:07

pushing you towards making one day a

5:38:10

week an entire maker day. And what I

5:38:12

like to do is I usually have Wednesdays

5:38:14

be that day. So Monday would be a

5:38:16

meeting day or a manager day and I would

5:38:18

stack as many calls as I could

5:38:20

on that day to try and have as few the

5:38:23

rest of the week cuz once you're in that

5:38:24

mode, you might as well just like suffer

5:38:26

entirely. But then on Tuesday, I would

5:38:29

operate in the morning as my maker time.

5:38:31

And then usually the back half, like 2

5:38:33

to 5 would be manager time. Wednesdays,

5:38:37

I'd block entirely for maker time. And

5:38:39

then Thursday would follow and Friday

5:38:40

would follow the same exact schedule as

5:38:42

Tuesday. There's probably an icon that's

5:38:44

popped up that breaks this down. We have

5:38:46

a little playbook for you on this

5:38:47

that'll walk you through how to build

5:38:50

your maker and manager schedule. I can't

5:38:53

emphasize the importance of this enough.

5:38:56

You will gain so much efficiency and

5:38:58

your team will be much happier with

5:39:00

their work if you operate this way. So,

5:39:02

we've talked a lot about hiring,

5:39:03

onboarding, and culture. Right now, one

5:39:06

thing that we haven't discussed or

5:39:08

touched on yet is the great debate that

5:39:12

has basically started to take place in

5:39:14

society since 2020. And that is remote

5:39:18

work versus inerson or hybrid. And I

5:39:22

think there are a lot of benefits and

5:39:25

detractors to all three. And so what I

5:39:29

want to do is walk through a couple of

5:39:31

different factors that you're going to

5:39:33

be thinking about when deciding or

5:39:35

determining whether or not you're going

5:39:36

to be a remote work uh team, a hybrid

5:39:40

team, or an in-person team. And so we're

5:39:42

going to walk through these different

5:39:44

factors, and I'm going to give you just

5:39:45

a couple of points on it. Again, this is

5:39:47

a sheet that you can download. I think

5:39:48

this will be very useful for you to use.

5:39:50

This is an important thing to get right.

5:39:53

And when I say get right, I'm actually

5:39:55

going to explain that a little bit more.

5:39:56

It's not that there is a right or wrong

5:39:58

way. There's not. All of them work. All

5:40:00

of them have downsides to it. The key is

5:40:03

to make sure that you are very

5:40:04

intentional about how you go about doing

5:40:07

this. The way you build culture remotely

5:40:09

is far different than in person. You

5:40:11

have to be a lot more intentional and

5:40:13

thoughtful remotely because as we all

5:40:16

know, there's amazing moments in person

5:40:18

when you're just walking through the

5:40:19

office and you happen to pass by that

5:40:21

employee and you just randomly embark on

5:40:23

a 20-minute conversation where you learn

5:40:25

a lot about them, right? You're able to

5:40:26

pour into them, help answer or solve a

5:40:28

problem they are encountering. That

5:40:30

doesn't really happen as much by

5:40:33

accident remotely. It's not like you're

5:40:35

just like walking through the Zoom rooms

5:40:37

and happen to stumble upon someone. Like

5:40:39

that's not how it works. And so you have

5:40:41

to be more intentional with how you set

5:40:42

up meetings, check-ins, etc. So factor

5:40:45

number one is flexibility. Okay? And for

5:40:49

remote work, the flexibility is

5:40:51

unbelievably high, right? Employees can

5:40:53

work from anywhere. They're adaptable

5:40:54

with their schedules. It allows the

5:40:57

employee to be very flexible. This is

5:41:00

viewed, in my opinion, as a benefit. By

5:41:03

doing this, you actually in some

5:41:06

instances can pay lower than typical

5:41:10

market rates because this is a huge

5:41:12

benefit for some individuals. There's a

5:41:14

lot of people out there that are parents

5:41:16

that maybe have young ones and they want

5:41:18

to be able to be home around their kids.

5:41:20

It doesn't mean that they're not

5:41:21

working. It just means that if their

5:41:23

kid, you know, starts puking or

5:41:25

something like that, they can actually

5:41:26

take care of it, right? It also cuts

5:41:28

down on commute costs for them. There's

5:41:30

a whole lot of benefits that play out

5:41:31

for the employee and the company. Now,

5:41:33

for inperson, the flexibility is pretty

5:41:35

low. Let's be real. These are typically

5:41:37

fixed hours and a required location that

5:41:40

you are working at. Now, there's a lot

5:41:41

of benefits to this, as we'll see. And

5:41:43

now that we live in a world where a lot

5:41:45

of people have become accustomed to

5:41:47

remote work, this is something that a

5:41:50

lot of different teams are finding

5:41:52

difficult. Now, hybrid is a little bit

5:41:54

of a medium here. Uh, and that's kind of

5:41:56

what you're going to find is hybrid for

5:41:57

all of these is kind of like a happy

5:41:59

medium between both. This is a mix of

5:42:00

remote work and office work. This is far

5:42:03

more flexible, but provides enough

5:42:05

structure that maybe the company might

5:42:07

feel a little bit more comfortable with

5:42:09

that cadence. A lot of individuals that

5:42:11

run companies have this fear that if

5:42:14

people are fully remote, how do I know

5:42:15

that they're actually working, right?

5:42:17

And so the hybrid model allows you to be

5:42:19

able to see them in action maybe two or

5:42:21

three times a week, but then maybe

5:42:24

they're the type of employee that gets a

5:42:26

lot more work done at home. Okay? And so

5:42:29

the flexibility here is medium or

5:42:31

moderate and I think is probably more

5:42:35

realistic for most organizations and

5:42:37

individuals than an all or nothing

5:42:40

approach. The next factor that we're

5:42:41

looking at is collaboration. Remote work

5:42:44

requires strong digital communication

5:42:46

tools, potential for time zone

5:42:48

challenges as well. So you need to make

5:42:50

sure that your tech stack and your

5:42:52

standard operating procedure for

5:42:54

communication is very clearly

5:42:56

articulated to the team. If you expect

5:42:58

people to be messaging back and forth

5:43:00

constantly all day long in Slack, you

5:43:03

need to make sure that they know that.

5:43:04

If you require that people hop on Zoom

5:43:07

calls, like that needs to be very clear.

5:43:10

The amount of collaboration that happens

5:43:12

by accident in a remote environment is

5:43:16

very minimal. Every once in a while, you

5:43:17

get blessed with that that moment where

5:43:19

you're on a Zoom call talking about one

5:43:21

thing and then it changes and evolves

5:43:23

into a big project or whatever, but for

5:43:25

the most part, you don't get those happy

5:43:27

accidents. Now, for collaboration in

5:43:29

person, this is far easier. Uh, in my

5:43:31

opinion, there's a lot of real-time

5:43:33

collaboration that occurs. If we're

5:43:35

talking about a creative director giving

5:43:36

notes to an editor, it's so much

5:43:38

different providing notes on frame.io

5:43:41

and and giving a couple of notes here

5:43:43

and there versus sitting down with the

5:43:46

editor and being like, "What if we did

5:43:47

this?" And then the editor chimes in on

5:43:49

that. And they feed each other and they

5:43:51

ladder up to a way better idea than

5:43:53

probably what they would have landed on

5:43:55

using just a Frame or some sort of

5:43:57

digital service like that. Now, don't

5:43:59

get me wrong, we use Frame. I love

5:44:01

Frame. I use it with all of our

5:44:02

partners. I've used it for years and I

5:44:04

think it's a very effective tool and

5:44:06

better than 99% of alternatives if

5:44:08

you're not in person. But there is a

5:44:10

beauty of having the team working

5:44:13

together on the ground in person. Being

5:44:16

able to real time go back and forth on

5:44:18

potential solves and solutions. Again,

5:44:21

what you'll notice with hybrid is this

5:44:23

is a balanced approach. depending on how

5:44:24

many days you have this individual

5:44:25

coming into the office is going to be

5:44:27

the amount of time that they get those

5:44:29

happy accidents, those random

5:44:31

occurrences where collaboration takes

5:44:33

place that was not planned. But it does

5:44:35

also give them the ability to be a

5:44:37

little bit more focused at home and have

5:44:40

less distraction. Collaboration can be a

5:44:42

big benefit, but it can also be a

5:44:44

detractor of productivity, which brings

5:44:46

us to the next factor, which is

5:44:48

productivity. Now productivity for uh at

5:44:52

home or remote work varies. This is very

5:44:55

dependent on the individual. I would say

5:44:57

when I look at the teams that I've ran,

5:44:59

half of the people fall into the camp of

5:45:01

they are highly effective at home. They

5:45:05

have a lot of agency. They know how to

5:45:07

own their own and they're mature

5:45:09

enough to be able to manage their time

5:45:11

effectively and not fall into the trap

5:45:13

of putting on Netflix and getting into

5:45:16

their PJs or, you know, taking 2 hours

5:45:20

out of the middle of their day to cook a

5:45:21

crazy lunch or some I know those

5:45:23

are a lot of the fears that a lot of

5:45:24

CEOs and founders have uh for remote

5:45:26

workers. Now, productivity for in-person

5:45:28

work, I actually believe it's the exact

5:45:30

same answer. So, it varies depending on

5:45:32

the individual. Some people thrive in an

5:45:35

environment where they are away from

5:45:37

their home and they know, "I'm in the

5:45:39

office. This is my working time."

5:45:41

However, there are a lot of individuals

5:45:43

that have the gift of gab and they love

5:45:45

to talk and they get really chatty when

5:45:48

they're around their co-workers. And

5:45:49

actually, I fall into this category. I

5:45:52

personally get a lot more work done when

5:45:55

I work from home and do a deep work

5:45:58

session versus trying to do the same

5:46:00

deep work in an office. even if I have

5:46:02

my own cubicle or my own

5:46:04

office, you know, the roles that I've

5:46:06

had over the years tend to be roles

5:46:08

where a lot of people want my input on

5:46:11

things. And so I remember like Vayner

5:46:12

Media for example, loved the work

5:46:14

environment there. It was super cool. It

5:46:16

was an open floor plan and everything,

5:46:18

but the downside to it, like the benefit

5:46:20

was like I could turn over to Dkirk or

5:46:22

to Drock or anybody on the team and be

5:46:25

like, "Hey, do you want to come check

5:46:26

this out? Let's jam on it." The downside

5:46:28

was when I was deep in an edit, anybody

5:46:31

could do that to me and they could just

5:46:33

tap my shoulder whenever and there's no

5:46:35

like do not disturb, you know, mode on

5:46:38

when you're in person. And so I actually

5:46:41

find that half of the individuals that

5:46:43

I've worked with are not very effective

5:46:45

in office. They don't have enough

5:46:47

discipline to not engage in random

5:46:50

conversations here and there. And one

5:46:52

thing I'll say is even if they are

5:46:54

ideulating on a piece of content or

5:46:57

they're working on it, sometimes that's

5:46:58

beneficial, but sometimes that's not

5:47:00

what the priority is right now. If they

5:47:01

have an edit that's due tomorrow and

5:47:03

they're sitting there talking with the

5:47:04

team about a video we're going to film

5:47:06

in two weeks, that's not the best use of

5:47:07

their time. Okay? And so again, I think

5:47:10

this varies and depends on the

5:47:11

individual. So that's why again, I like

5:47:14

a hybrid approach here because you can

5:47:17

actually build a team where you reverse

5:47:19

engineer the individual. Maybe some

5:47:21

people need three days, four days

5:47:24

working from home and only come into the

5:47:25

office one or two days a week, while

5:47:27

others maybe it's like, no, they need to

5:47:29

be in five days a week. And you mutually

5:47:31

agree upon that because they're

5:47:32

self-aware and know, yeah, I don't I

5:47:35

don't do a good job at home. Like I end

5:47:36

up just like around, turning the

5:47:38

TV on or cleaning my house or whatever.

5:47:40

I do a lot of home activities when I'm

5:47:42

at home. So ultimately, I think

5:47:44

especially on the productivity side, you

5:47:46

need to reverse engineer the individual.

5:47:48

Now I understand there are some of you

5:47:49

that are in bigger organizations and

5:47:51

you're about to build a creative team

5:47:53

and they have their way of operating and

5:47:55

you don't have the ability to be

5:47:56

flexible there then okay cool like

5:47:58

borrow my life philosophy which is

5:48:00

whatever you are given you will turn to

5:48:02

your advantage okay so if you do need to

5:48:04

be in person 24/7 okay cool make it your

5:48:07

advantage you know organize a morning

5:48:09

breakfast once a week where you and the

5:48:12

team have pancakes and coffee and you

5:48:14

jam on different things you've observed

5:48:16

online that maybe could apply to the

5:48:18

content you're making or whatever. Or if

5:48:20

you have to be remote and you can't be

5:48:22

in person, okay, cool. Maybe what you do

5:48:24

is you create a happy hour on Fridays or

5:48:26

Thursdays. Not Fridays, cuz nobody wants

5:48:27

to do a happy hour on Friday

5:48:29

with their co-workers. They want to go

5:48:30

out with their homies. But on Thursday,

5:48:32

maybe you end the day with like an hour

5:48:33

session where you all have cocktails or,

5:48:36

you know, you drink sodas, whatever the

5:48:38

deal is, kombucha if you're in

5:48:40

Bellingham, Washington, uh or Portland,

5:48:42

Oregon. And like maybe you do that and

5:48:43

you all jam and maybe sometimes you're

5:48:46

talking about work stuff, maybe

5:48:47

sometimes you're just talking about

5:48:48

life. I think that you can always try to

5:48:51

take the benefits from the opposite

5:48:54

operation. So if you're in person, you

5:48:57

can take the benefits from remote or if

5:48:59

you're remote, you can try and take the

5:49:00

benefits from in person and replicate

5:49:02

them in your own way. Now again, this is

5:49:05

another situation where hybrid is the

5:49:08

best move in my opinion. That's what I

5:49:11

like to run. The next factor we're going

5:49:13

to take into account here is cost,

5:49:15

right? I mean, ultimately, we got

5:49:16

limited budgets and and some of us have

5:49:18

more limited budgets than others. And

5:49:20

so, this is a a factor that I think is

5:49:23

probably top of mind for a lot of

5:49:25

individuals. And when it comes to remote

5:49:27

work, this is probably the most cost

5:49:29

effective. Okay? You save on office

5:49:31

space. You save on like the employees

5:49:34

save on commuting expenses. You don't

5:49:36

have to have relocation costs if you're

5:49:38

a fully remote operation. And you know,

5:49:41

maybe you, the founder, are based in New

5:49:43

York City. You can hire somebody in

5:49:45

Florida and California, and Kansas,

5:49:47

wherever, and they're not going to have

5:49:49

to move to New York City, and so you

5:49:52

don't have to pay an egregious

5:49:53

relocation package. Okay? So, you save a

5:49:56

lot of cost there. Now, for the office

5:49:59

in person, this is the highest cost

5:50:02

option here. you're going to have to pay

5:50:03

for an office, whether you're buying it

5:50:05

outright or you're renting. That's going

5:50:07

to be a pretty high overhead every

5:50:09

month. You also have utilities. And then

5:50:12

typically nowadays, I mean, I think this

5:50:14

is a great thing, but tougher for small

5:50:16

businesses, you know, with the rise of

5:50:18

Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple, all

5:50:21

these cool in-person offices. Everyone's

5:50:23

aware that like companies can provide

5:50:25

cereal and and fruit and coffee and all

5:50:27

these, you know, kombucha, beer on tap,

5:50:29

cold brew, all of this And so more

5:50:32

and more employees are starting to

5:50:34

expect some perks for being in the

5:50:37

office, okay? Like at the very least

5:50:39

granola bars and, you know, sodas or

5:50:42

something like that in the fridge. And

5:50:43

so you incur not only the cost of your

5:50:46

rent or your mortgage, you have

5:50:49

utilities and you have the cost of some

5:50:50

perks that you're going to probably need

5:50:52

to provide. Now, in the beginning, is

5:50:54

this absolutely necessary? No. Of

5:50:56

course, there's going to be people that

5:50:57

argue in the comments about like, you

5:50:58

know, people have gotten soft. They need

5:51:01

doesn't matter. It's more expensive to

5:51:04

be in person for sure. Hybrid's

5:51:06

funny on cost. It's actually, I think,

5:51:09

the maybe only or one of the only

5:51:12

scenarios where hybrid is a very bad

5:51:14

option cuz you kind of get

5:51:17

right? You're paying for an office. You

5:51:20

incur the cost of having this space. And

5:51:22

if it's hybrid, you need to have space

5:51:25

available for the remote workers to come

5:51:27

in, but they're not in all the time. So,

5:51:29

you're paying for space that's not

5:51:31

getting used all the time. So, you have

5:51:33

free empty space that you're not

5:51:36

monetizing. That kind of sucks. This is

5:51:39

the detractor in my opinion to the

5:51:42

hybrid model, which I have been very

5:51:45

clearly in favor of up until this point.

5:51:47

So, if cost is your major factor, it's

5:51:50

your number one factor, then hybrid

5:51:52

might not be for you right now. That

5:51:53

might be something that you can aspire

5:51:55

to. But maybe if cost is your number one

5:51:57

priority, you're probably going to want

5:51:59

to go remote. Now, the next factor that

5:52:02

we're looking at is talent pool. What

5:52:04

individuals do you have access to? And

5:52:06

when you are fully remote, you have

5:52:08

access to the whole world. You literally

5:52:10

could hire anybody anywhere at any time.

5:52:13

That opens up the door for not only very

5:52:16

impressive, highly skilled talent, but

5:52:19

also very impressive, highly skilled

5:52:22

talent at a reduced cost. Think about it

5:52:24

this way. a very very talented editor, a

5:52:27

10 out of 10 in LA versus a 10 out of 10

5:52:30

editor, same exact skill set living in

5:52:33

Kansas City. Very different. I mean,

5:52:35

honestly, the difference between a New

5:52:37

York City or LA editor that it's a 10

5:52:39

out of 10 and a Las Vegas editor is very

5:52:41

different. And so, if you are a remote

5:52:44

team, you can hire highly talented. If

5:52:47

you're based in LA, you don't have to

5:52:48

hire LA editors for the LA Premium. you

5:52:52

do have the flexibility to get away with

5:52:54

not having to bring those individuals.

5:52:57

You also get access to talent that is

5:52:59

literally across the world.

5:53:01

Okay? And so, like, if you're starting

5:53:02

to make international content and stuff

5:53:05

that you're going global with, you have

5:53:07

access to a talent pool that's going to

5:53:09

understand the nuances of those new

5:53:11

cultures that maybe you don't get. This

5:53:13

allows your talent pool to go from your

5:53:15

local market to the entire world. If you

5:53:17

are fully in office, however, you really

5:53:21

limit your talent pool. If you're based

5:53:23

in Los Angeles or New York City, your

5:53:26

talent pool is going to be fine. You're

5:53:27

you're not going to have an issue,

5:53:29

especially when it comes to creatives.

5:53:30

Like those are the hubs where the most

5:53:32

amount of creatives are. But if you find

5:53:34

yourself in like Chattanooga, Tennessee

5:53:36

or El Paso, Texas, yeah, you might not

5:53:39

have quite the same access to talent

5:53:41

that those folks in LA and NYC have.

5:53:44

This becomes a major constraint. You are

5:53:47

all of a sudden limited to people in

5:53:49

your local area or people that are

5:53:51

willing to relocate. And that's going to

5:53:53

drive your cost up because more than

5:53:55

likely if you're going to bring somebody

5:53:56

from LA to El Paso, Texas, you're

5:53:59

probably going to have to pay them a

5:54:00

premium because you're compensating them

5:54:03

for a massive lifestyle change and

5:54:05

literally them missing out on the

5:54:07

lifestyle and opportunities that come

5:54:10

from being in LA. The amount of

5:54:12

opportunities that pop up for a video

5:54:14

editor in Los Angeles are absurd. You

5:54:16

can be at a coffee shop editing a video

5:54:18

and have five different people walk up

5:54:20

to you and talk to you about your work.

5:54:21

And that's networking at scale. And so

5:54:24

if you move to El Paso, you know,

5:54:26

nothing against El Paso. I love El Paso.

5:54:28

I've been there once. If you live in El

5:54:30

Paso, I almost guarantee if you're in a

5:54:32

in a coffee shop editing, you're

5:54:34

not going to have five different

5:54:35

opportunities potentially pop up like

5:54:36

you would in a New York City or a Los

5:54:38

Angeles. you really limit your talent

5:54:40

pool when you are local, especially if

5:54:42

you are local in a non- major market.

5:54:45

Now, the hybrid model is a little bit

5:54:48

better than the local. So, you can kind

5:54:50

of use it as like a benefit that you you

5:54:52

place in front of the candidate. Yes,

5:54:54

you do have to relocate, but you're not

5:54:55

going to have to be in office all the

5:54:56

time. You can be remote. And so, maybe

5:54:58

there's a scenario where they could be

5:55:00

remote and go back to the town they're

5:55:02

from and work remotely for 4 days a

5:55:04

week. So, they could be in office 3 days

5:55:05

a week and then they could go travel for

5:55:07

four. This provides a lot more

5:55:08

flexibility for the employee which does

5:55:11

make the relocation offer a little bit

5:55:14

more palatable from my experience. The

5:55:16

next factor is culture and engagement.

5:55:18

And I think you guys can probably

5:55:19

already imagine where I'm going with

5:55:21

this. Remote is very hard to build

5:55:24

culture and to drive engagement within

5:55:26

your team. There's a huge difference

5:55:28

when I say, "Hey, Trevor, what do you

5:55:29

think of this idea?" when he's right in

5:55:31

front of me versus if I send it on

5:55:33

Slack. He might be deep in work. He

5:55:35

might be twiddling his thumbs,

5:55:37

around, doing nothing. It might take him

5:55:38

an hour to respond, right? And so speed,

5:55:41

engagement, and culture are much slower.

5:55:45

It's not impossible. You can absolutely

5:55:47

build a very powerful culture remotely,

5:55:49

but it just takes more time and requires

5:55:52

far more intentionality. I I believe

5:55:54

that if you are going to go the remote

5:55:58

route, be very very intentional with

5:56:01

your check-ins. send a morning check-in

5:56:03

on Slack seeing how the team's doing. Is

5:56:05

there anything that I can help with? Are

5:56:07

there any roadblocks that I can bulldoze

5:56:09

through for you? Is there any clarity

5:56:10

that I can provide you? How are you

5:56:12

feeling? Are you feeling healthy? Are

5:56:13

you sick? Can I send you juice? Like

5:56:15

anything like that that can help you

5:56:17

expedite building the company and team

5:56:20

culture. The other thing that you can

5:56:21

do, now this is uh a cost, this is a

5:56:24

higher investment, but if you have the

5:56:26

budget to, one thing I found very

5:56:28

effective is if you do have a remote

5:56:30

team, you can create a in-person meetup.

5:56:34

Okay? And this is a one-time event or

5:56:36

maybe it's a quarterly event uh that

5:56:38

takes place where you fly the team into

5:56:41

one spot and you all hang out. What I

5:56:43

would recommend if you're going to do

5:56:44

that is make it a combination of fun and

5:56:46

work. It shouldn't just all be fun and

5:56:48

around, but it shouldn't all

5:56:50

just be work, too. You want to give the

5:56:52

employees the opportunity to do what

5:56:53

they can't do, right? When you are in

5:56:55

person, which I'll touch on in a second,

5:56:57

one really cool thing that does happen

5:56:59

is some employees are like, "Hey, you

5:57:01

want to go grab dinner? Like, we're

5:57:02

working late. Let's go grab beers. Let's

5:57:03

go jam." And they develop a closer,

5:57:06

tight-knit relationship, and that has a

5:57:08

massive ripple effect throughout your

5:57:09

team. The closer they are, the better

5:57:11

they're going to communicate. the more

5:57:12

they're going to understand each other,

5:57:13

the less room there is for

5:57:15

misunderstandings and weird drama and

5:57:17

conflict. Now, like I was saying, for

5:57:19

the inerson, I think this is the easiest

5:57:21

method for building culture. But there

5:57:23

are some downsides to it. One, there's a

5:57:25

lot of young people that are in the

5:57:27

workforce now that entered the workforce

5:57:30

after or during co and so they've never

5:57:32

been in person and so they have no idea

5:57:34

how to hold themselves, how to behave

5:57:37

maturely. And so you do sometimes,

5:57:40

especially I've noticed on creative

5:57:41

teams or younger teams, you run into

5:57:44

scenarios where maybe there's a little

5:57:46

bit more drama that's going to pop up.

5:57:48

You might have to deal with a little bit

5:57:49

more interpersonal training and

5:57:52

education on how we conduct ourselves.

5:57:54

Just like you get so much benefit from

5:57:56

the high frequency, high touch, lots of

5:57:59

contact, as we know, if we spend an

5:58:01

entire weekend with our significant

5:58:03

other, by the end of that weekend, we

5:58:05

might be a little bit more likely to get

5:58:06

in an argument. The same thing happens

5:58:08

with teams. If you spend all day every

5:58:10

day with each other, you might start

5:58:12

getting a little irritated and maybe

5:58:14

make a sly comment and that can

5:58:15

snowball. And so that that's one thing

5:58:18

that I would caution you to be aware of

5:58:19

is if you are building a team that is

5:58:22

utilizing a lot younger talent and more

5:58:26

junior individuals that are earlier in

5:58:28

their career, you are going to have to

5:58:30

spend a little bit more time educating

5:58:32

them on how to conduct themselves. Now,

5:58:34

hybrid is a beautiful blend of the two,

5:58:36

right? You get the in-person dynamic

5:58:38

where you're able to scale culture

5:58:41

quicker, right? You're able to reinforce

5:58:42

good behaviors and correct bad ones a

5:58:44

lot faster, but you also get the benefit

5:58:46

of maybe not everybody is in the office

5:58:49

every single day and so they're not all

5:58:51

just chatting around a table every

5:58:54

single day as well. And so you get the

5:58:56

best of both worlds. You get expedited

5:58:58

culture, strength of culture, but also

5:59:00

you get to retain productivity that

5:59:02

maybe some teams lose by always being in

5:59:06

person together. The beauty of having a

5:59:07

team that all love each other and get

5:59:09

along really well and love to chat and

5:59:11

work on is well, they work really

5:59:14

well together and they get a lot done.

5:59:15

The downside is is maybe they end up

5:59:18

falling out of productivity a little bit

5:59:20

because they're chatting too much.

5:59:21

Personally, I would actually prefer, as

5:59:23

a side note, for that to be my problem

5:59:25

than the alternative. I'd rather that

5:59:27

they they want to talk to each other

5:59:29

versus them not wanting to talk to each

5:59:31

other. So ultimately, I think what we

5:59:32

have here is good, better, best. I

5:59:36

personally like in person a lot. I I

5:59:40

think that there are more benefits to in

5:59:43

person than remote for the company, but

5:59:46

that's one-sided. I think for a lot of

5:59:49

individuals, remote work is better. I

5:59:51

don't like to only do things in my

5:59:54

benefit. I want to have a mutual

5:59:57

exchange of benefit. And that's where I

5:59:59

like hybrid. I think hybrid is the best

6:00:01

version if you can afford it. If you

6:00:03

have the ability to pay for an office

6:00:05

that is not always being used and you

6:00:07

won't get pissed when people

6:00:08

aren't always in there, then hybrid is

6:00:11

the way to go. You get the best of both

6:00:12

worlds. You get to scale culture,

6:00:14

correct bad behaviors, reinforce good

6:00:16

ones. You get to do fun activities with

6:00:18

the team. you get to know them better

6:00:20

because you get the, you know, water

6:00:22

cooler talk where you get to learn

6:00:23

something about somebody that you had no

6:00:25

clue that they were interested in. And

6:00:27

maybe that's something that you can

6:00:28

start to pour into. Maybe you find out

6:00:30

that somebody on your team loves making

6:00:33

music. Maybe you have a video coming up

6:00:34

that you want an original track to and

6:00:36

so they actually go home and work on

6:00:38

that as a project. Okay, cool. Probably

6:00:40

would have never discovered that over

6:00:42

Zoom. But if you are at a stage where

6:00:44

you can't afford an office, then I truly

6:00:47

believe you can absolutely build a

6:00:49

powerful strong team remotely. I've done

6:00:52

it. I've literally had a team of 14

6:00:54

people all remote before. I know that it

6:00:57

is possible. It is a challenge and you

6:00:59

have to be far more intentional and

6:01:01

methodical with how you approach it. So

6:01:03

to recap, hybrid in my opinion is the

6:01:06

best. Then the next two, I'm just going

6:01:09

to say it. In person is best for the

6:01:10

company. remote is best for the

6:01:12

employee. And so you have to determine

6:01:14

what factors here are most important to

6:01:16

you. So the sheet that you have that

6:01:18

you've downloaded, what I want you to do

6:01:20

is order in priority what are the

6:01:22

factors that are most important to you

6:01:24

right now. And that becomes your

6:01:26

decision-making framework. That's how

6:01:28

you determine whether you're going to go

6:01:29

in person, remote, or hybrid. So here

6:01:32

are my final thoughts on building your

6:01:35

team. Again, I think this is arguably

6:01:38

the most important part of this entire

6:01:39

course. One, a strong team is not just

6:01:42

about skill. It's about culture,

6:01:43

alignment, growth, and trust. Two,

6:01:46

define and reinforce your core values

6:01:49

daily. Right? If if good branding is an

6:01:52

intentional pairing of relevant things

6:01:54

done consistently, well, pair yourself

6:01:57

and your organization with your core

6:01:59

values consistently and then the team

6:02:03

will inherently associate the two.

6:02:04

Branding works externally and internally

6:02:07

just as effectively. Number three,

6:02:09

please be radically transparent. Just

6:02:12

like trust begets trust, transparency

6:02:14

begets transparency. You want your team

6:02:16

to be transparent with you about the

6:02:17

problems that are occurring, right? You

6:02:19

don't want them secretly dealing with a

6:02:21

bunch of different problems that you

6:02:22

have no idea about and then one day it

6:02:23

blows up in your face. Well, they're not

6:02:25

going to be open and vulnerable with you

6:02:27

if you're not open and vulnerable with

6:02:29

them. Number four, make growth a

6:02:30

priority. Your team is going to see

6:02:32

themselves on your team a lot longer if

6:02:36

they see a long road ahead of growth. If

6:02:40

they think that they're probably going

6:02:41

to be capped out on their growth within

6:02:44

the next 3 months, guess what they're

6:02:45

spending their time doing right now?

6:02:47

Posting on LinkedIn and looking at

6:02:49

potential other opportunities because

6:02:50

they want to move the on. Number

6:02:52

five, the most important one to me and

6:02:54

how I strive to always lead. Lead with

6:02:57

empathy. Your team will respond with

6:03:00

empathy back. So when you up as the

6:03:03

leader, they will be empathetic towards

6:03:05

you rather than holding it against you.

6:03:06

When a mistake occurs, often times it's

6:03:09

not intentional. They're not trying to

6:03:12

ruin your brand. They're not trying to

6:03:15

up the process or lose the company

6:03:17

money. Be empathetic to all that they

6:03:19

have going on. A lot of times these

6:03:22

people have lives outside of their job.

6:03:25

Crazy, crazy concept. and their lives

6:03:28

outside of the job affect their job. I

6:03:32

truly believe that if you show up on a

6:03:34

daily basis as an empathetic leader,

6:03:36

your team is going to stick with you and

6:03:40

fight for you and show up for you in a

6:03:42

way that you could never imagine. Lead

6:03:45

your team with empathy, not fear. If you

6:03:48

lead your team with empathy rather than

6:03:50

fear, creativity will flourish rather

6:03:53

than be stifled. Culture isn't created

6:03:56

in the words that you say. It's created

6:03:58

in the actions that you choose to do

6:04:00

every single day. If you're intentional

6:04:03

about it, you won't just have employees.

6:04:05

You'll have a team that's fully locked

6:04:06

in and ready to build something much

6:04:09

bigger than the

6:04:12

individual. All right, y'all. We have

6:04:14

gotten to the final section. We've gone

6:04:17

over brand. We've gone over content. And

6:04:19

we've gone over building out your team.

6:04:21

And we are at the final piece of the

6:04:23

puzzle, which is monetize. And we're

6:04:25

going to start with trust before

6:04:27

transactions. Now, most people make the

6:04:30

mistake of trying to monetize too early.

6:04:32

They push offers before trust is built

6:04:35

and then they wonder why no one buys.

6:04:37

The reality is trust is the currency

6:04:40

that preeds the transaction. Now, before

6:04:43

we dive in, I want to just say I

6:04:45

understand this position to be in. Last

6:04:48

night after filming for a full 12-hour

6:04:49

day, Trevor and I were sitting at the

6:04:51

Airbnb and we were actually debating and

6:04:53

going back and forth just looking at

6:04:55

what could we charge for this course and

6:04:57

how many people do we think we could buy

6:04:58

and we were running the numbers and I

6:05:00

will tell you it is unbelievably

6:05:02

tempting. So, I want to empathize with

6:05:04

you if you are in a position where maybe

6:05:07

you did try to monetize too early. Maybe

6:05:09

you did try and get transactions before

6:05:11

you built trust. I understand it

6:05:13

completely. Maybe you're in the position

6:05:15

right now where you're building your

6:05:16

brand and you haven't made any asks, but

6:05:19

you're still early in the process and

6:05:20

you're like, "Fuck, I really want to

6:05:22

make a little bit of money off of this."

6:05:24

I get it. And off top, we got bills to

6:05:27

pay and mouths to feed. So, if that is

6:05:30

the case, then you got to do what you

6:05:32

got to do. What I'm about to walk

6:05:33

through is the best case scenario. But I

6:05:36

understand there are realities that we

6:05:37

live in, and so you have to do what you

6:05:39

got to do and take care of your family.

6:05:41

But with that, before you ever try to

6:05:44

monetize, I believe that your brand

6:05:46

should do these three things. Provide an

6:05:49

unbelievable amount of value upfront.

6:05:52

Your audience should feel like they're

6:05:53

winning and getting so much value before

6:05:55

they ever even spend a dollar. Number

6:05:58

two is demonstrate credibility and

6:05:59

expertise. You need to become the go-to

6:06:01

authority in your industry. And thirdly,

6:06:04

establish a relationship with your

6:06:06

audience. Engagement actually matters.

6:06:09

If people feel like they know you, sales

6:06:11

become effortless. You're not having to

6:06:14

push, convince, inject all this scarcity

6:06:17

and urgency, they trust you. They

6:06:19

believe that what you are offering is of

6:06:21

actual value because what you've offered

6:06:24

for free has been worth more than what

6:06:26

they've invested. And so this leads us

6:06:28

to defining your monetization model.

6:06:32

Now, to be clear, I don't believe that

6:06:34

all brands should monetize the same.

6:06:35

Your monetization strategy should line

6:06:38

up with your strengths, what you're

6:06:40

providing, the value that you bring in

6:06:42

your content, and more importantly, what

6:06:45

your audience actually needs. So, here

6:06:47

are five primary paths that you can take

6:06:50

with your monetization model. Number one

6:06:51

is services. Think agency life, think

6:06:55

consulting, think coaching. This is

6:06:57

ideal for hightouch direct impact with

6:07:00

your clients. You'll find this works

6:07:02

well if you have deep expertise and

6:07:05

people are already asking for your

6:07:07

advice. Number two is products. This is

6:07:09

digital or physical. Some examples of

6:07:11

digital are ebooks, templates,

6:07:14

playbooks, courses. One thing to note

6:07:17

here is these are also very high margin

6:07:19

and so your profitability will be

6:07:21

through the roof if you do this

6:07:22

correctly. Now, a couple examples for

6:07:24

physical are like a physical book or you

6:07:26

could sell apparel. There's many

6:07:28

different versions of this, but you're

6:07:29

going to find that digital is higher

6:07:31

margins. And so, I would encourage you

6:07:33

to explore this and probably lean into

6:07:36

more digital products earlier on so that

6:07:38

you're able to scale. Number three is

6:07:40

affiliates and sponsorships. If you've

6:07:42

put the effort into building the trust,

6:07:44

you're going to be able to monetize

6:07:46

through very intentional and strategic

6:07:48

partnerships with people that align with

6:07:50

your brand. Now, what I would recommend

6:07:52

you do is don't shill out tools and

6:07:56

programs or software that you don't

6:07:58

actually use. Make sure that you're

6:08:00

always pushing stuff that you actually

6:08:03

actually use and believe in. Your brand

6:08:05

is your most valuable asset. And if you

6:08:07

end up pushing out a bunch of products

6:08:08

that you don't believe in or use and

6:08:11

that are actually garbage for your

6:08:12

community, that pairing done

6:08:14

consistently will create a bad brand

6:08:17

effect for you. people will start to

6:08:19

associate you with the shitty product.

6:08:21

So, make sure whatever you are pushing

6:08:23

or promoting is something that you truly

6:08:26

believe in and you know will be valuable

6:08:28

for your audience. Number four is

6:08:30

community and memberships. This can

6:08:32

create recurring revenue for you via

6:08:34

exclusive content, masterminds, online

6:08:37

groups, or even paid newsletters. The

6:08:39

list goes on and on. There's many

6:08:41

different options for you in this realm.

6:08:42

And the beauty of this is it's a great

6:08:44

hub for your super fans and for you to

6:08:47

go deeper with those fans and build a

6:08:50

tighter connection and build greater

6:08:51

loyalty with that audience. And number

6:08:54

five is ads and content monetization.

6:08:57

This looks like YouTube ad revenue,

6:09:00

podcast sponsorships or even newsletter

6:09:02

ads. This is a very popular route to go,

6:09:04

but what I would encourage you to do is

6:09:06

pair this with one of the other

6:09:08

monetization models. Typically, in the

6:09:10

beginning, you're not going to be

6:09:11

earning that much in sponsorships or ad

6:09:13

revenue, but it is a nice thing to be

6:09:15

able to potentially cover costs of

6:09:17

production for your content. This is

6:09:20

especially effective for the hightra

6:09:22

long-term brand. So, like I said in the

6:09:24

beginning, you're not going to see much

6:09:26

traction on this monetization model.

6:09:28

This is kind of like a nice to have or

6:09:29

an add-on to an already established,

6:09:32

more effective and consistent

6:09:34

monetization model. Now, a pro tip here

6:09:36

is if you're not sure where to start, I

6:09:39

would encourage you to look at your

6:09:40

email and your DMs and your comments.

6:09:43

More than likely, you can see what your

6:09:45

audience is already asking for and then

6:09:47

you can serve them what they already

6:09:49

have identified they need. This will

6:09:51

make it a lot easier to get conversions

6:09:53

to occur. Next is share the knowledge,

6:09:57

sell the execution. If you give away

6:09:59

value freely, people will still pay for

6:10:01

the help. A lot of people, and I I

6:10:03

completely understand why, fear sharing

6:10:05

way too much of their information for

6:10:07

free. They think, "If I share everything

6:10:09

I know, why would anybody ever pay me?"

6:10:12

But the reality is is the more value you

6:10:14

give, the more demand you create. The

6:10:17

more value you give, the more trust you

6:10:20

build. The more trust you have, the more

6:10:23

likely someone is to convert. So, here's

6:10:25

the formula. Share the knowledge, sell

6:10:28

the execution. Your best content should

6:10:30

be so valuable that people feel

6:10:32

compelled to act. But then when they go

6:10:34

to act, they realize that the execution

6:10:36

is overwhelming and they might not have

6:10:39

the tools, resources or knowledge to

6:10:41

implement what you have told them to do.

6:10:43

This is where the monetization comes

6:10:45

into play. And as an example, I have

6:10:49

modified my Harley-Davidsons like an

6:10:52

insane amount. One of my bikes, it's a

6:10:54

Harley-Davidson Road King special. And I

6:10:56

have done so much to it, you wouldn't

6:10:59

even recognize it as a Road King. Now,

6:11:00

when I went to upgrade my exhaust pipe,

6:11:03

for example, I watched probably a

6:11:05

hundred different videos on YouTube on

6:11:07

how to change the exhaust pipe. I just

6:11:09

wanted to have the knowledge. I wanted

6:11:11

to see what kind of pipes that I should

6:11:12

choose between, what the best one was

6:11:14

for my model. I consumed enough content

6:11:17

to know exactly what to do. Now, if you

6:11:19

know me, you know I'm not very

6:11:21

mechanically inclined, like at all. And

6:11:23

so in watching it, what it actually

6:11:25

showed me was this is far too

6:11:27

complicated and way too expensive of a

6:11:30

vehicle for me to up. So what am I

6:11:32

going to do? I'm going to go to the

6:11:34

Harley-Davidson dealership that put

6:11:36

content out for free showing me how I

6:11:38

could go about doing that. And that's

6:11:40

what I did. I ended up going and paying

6:11:42

Harley to install the pipe. I didn't do

6:11:44

it myself. And so they gave me all the

6:11:46

knowledge and then they sold the

6:11:49

execution. Another example is maybe you

6:11:51

give away a framework that helps people

6:11:53

land their first client. The knowledge

6:11:55

is free but the execution requires

6:11:58

additional guidance templates. That is

6:12:00

what you sell. The execution of the

6:12:03

knowledge. So the takeaway here is that

6:12:05

the knowledge is free but you charge for

6:12:08

the execution. And now we're going to

6:12:10

build your offer stack. A oneizefits-all

6:12:14

approach definitely will not work. We

6:12:17

need something that is custom and

6:12:19

tailored to each of us and what we are

6:12:21

providing to the marketplace. Now, the

6:12:23

best brands have multiple revenue

6:12:25

streams. But guess what? They didn't

6:12:27

start that way. Start with one offer,

6:12:29

refine it, and then begin to expand.

6:12:32

Don't start with five different offers.

6:12:33

You're going to confuse your audience.

6:12:35

Make it very simple. Make it something

6:12:37

you can track and something that you can

6:12:38

refine over time before you go about

6:12:41

expanding. So, here's a simple offer

6:12:43

progression. One, you put out free

6:12:45

content. This builds trust and

6:12:47

awareness. Two, create a lead magnet.

6:12:49

Think miniourse, SOP, checklist,

6:12:52

playbook. This allows you to capture

6:12:54

emails and phone numbers so that you're

6:12:55

not just beholden to the algorithms of

6:12:58

these platforms serving your content,

6:12:59

but you have a direct line of access to

6:13:01

your customers. Number three is you have

6:13:03

your low ticket offer. This is usually

6:13:05

somewhere between $10 and $100. Think

6:13:07

ebooks, mini courses, or templates. And

6:13:10

what this does is it removes the barrier

6:13:13

of entry. Number four is a mid-t offer.

6:13:16

Now, this is anywhere from $500 to

6:13:18

$5,000. I know that's a wide range, but

6:13:20

it depends on what you're offering.

6:13:21

Think group coaching, memberships to

6:13:23

your community, or even really in-depth

6:13:25

courses. These are for your highly

6:13:27

committed buyers. And lastly, number

6:13:29

five is your high ticket offer. Think

6:13:31

$10,000 plus. This is your one-on-one

6:13:34

consulting, your agency services, or any

6:13:37

done for you service that you can

6:13:39

provide. And these are your very high

6:13:42

ROI clients. Most successful brands

6:13:45

don't start with their high ticket offer

6:13:46

first. They establish trust and build

6:13:49

awareness before ever offering that to

6:13:51

the marketplace. There are some unique

6:13:52

scenarios where maybe you have demand

6:13:54

before you ever start making public

6:13:56

content. But that is very very rare and

6:13:59

the majority of you consuming this if

6:14:01

you're in the early stages, you are not

6:14:03

at that point yet. You need to build

6:14:05

more trust with your audience and get

6:14:07

more people to be aware of who you are

6:14:08

and what you offer before bringing a

6:14:11

high ticket offer into the marketplace.

6:14:13

Next, we're going to let our content do

6:14:16

the selling for us. Sales should feel

6:14:19

natural, not forced. People hate feeling

6:14:22

sold to, but they love buying from

6:14:25

someone they trust. That's why your

6:14:27

brand should bridge the gap between

6:14:30

value and monetization. So, how do we do

6:14:32

this? Well, here is how you can let your

6:14:35

content sell for you. One, teach a

6:14:38

valuable lesson and maybe end it with a

6:14:41

soft CTA. Number two is share client

6:14:44

success stories. Showcase how your offer

6:14:46

helped them improve. Number three,

6:14:48

document your process. Show the behind

6:14:50

the scenes of what you do and what you

6:14:53

offer. Number four, address common

6:14:55

objections. Answer the unspoken concerns

6:14:57

that are holding people back. Number

6:14:59

five, use lead magnets to capture data.

6:15:02

Offer something valuable like a

6:15:04

checklist, a playbook, a miniourse, or a

6:15:07

full in-depth course in exchange for an

6:15:09

email so that you have direct access to

6:15:12

your customers. Here's an example.

6:15:14

Instead of saying, "Buy my ebook on

6:15:16

personal branding," try, "I helped John

6:15:18

go from 0 to 10k followers in 4 and 1/2

6:15:20

months using this exact strategy." If

6:15:22

you want the full system, I break it

6:15:23

down in my ebook. There's a link in my

6:15:25

bio. Do you see the difference there?

6:15:27

It's far more compelling if you share

6:15:29

the results that you are getting for

6:15:31

your clients and for your customers than

6:15:33

if you're just encouraging people to go

6:15:35

buy the book based on what it is. And

6:15:37

finally, I'm sure you've probably gotten

6:15:39

this theme throughout. Play the long

6:15:42

game. We want to monetize without losing

6:15:45

trust. A lot of people approach

6:15:48

monetization backwards. They think about

6:15:49

how to make money first, then build

6:15:51

content to try and drive sales. But the

6:15:53

brands that actually win, they're not

6:15:55

chasing short-term revenue. They're

6:15:57

building long-term trust. If you end up

6:16:00

doing this right, your audience isn't

6:16:02

going to just buy from you once. They

6:16:03

will keep coming back. And this is how

6:16:06

you build a brand that doesn't just make

6:16:08

money, it stands the test of time. So

6:16:11

here is how we are going to execute this

6:16:13

strategy. Number one is to deliver so

6:16:16

much value that people feel guilty not

6:16:18

buying. Instead of following what

6:16:20

everyone else in the industry is doing,

6:16:21

give away your best insights for free.

6:16:24

Don't do the watered down version, not

6:16:26

some teaser of what they can then go and

6:16:28

purchase. You want to give the actual

6:16:29

frameworks, strategies, and knowledge

6:16:31

that people would traditionally be

6:16:33

paying for. Ultimately, the reaction

6:16:35

that we want to build within our

6:16:36

audience is if this is what they're

6:16:38

giving away for free, what the are

6:16:40

they charging for? When your free

6:16:42

content drives real results, your

6:16:44

audience isn't just going to be open to

6:16:45

buying from you. they're going to feel

6:16:48

compelled to buy from you. Number two is

6:16:50

build a system where people continue to

6:16:53

come back. Create a recurring content

6:16:55

format. I'm talking like challenges,

6:16:57

weekly breakdowns, anything that gets

6:16:59

your audience to keep returning. You

6:17:01

also want to make sure that your content

6:17:02

is easy to find and easy to binge. Put

6:17:05

together playlists. Categorize it by

6:17:08

topic. Make sure it's easy for your

6:17:10

audience to consume this highly valuable

6:17:13

free content you're putting out. The

6:17:15

goal is to focus on long-term retention.

6:17:17

How can we keep people engaged over

6:17:19

months, not just days? Rather than

6:17:21

thinking about a one-hit viral video,

6:17:23

think more like Netflix, a series that

6:17:26

you continue to come back to day after

6:17:29

day, month after month. And number

6:17:31

three, and this is the most important

6:17:33

one, protect your reputation at all

6:17:37

costs. It is way harder to rebuild trust

6:17:41

than it is to maintain trust. Every

6:17:44

short-term cash grab that you do comes

6:17:46

with a significant long-term cost. You

6:17:50

need to be obsessive with who and what

6:17:53

you pair your brand with because these

6:17:55

are the associations that your audience

6:17:56

is going to make when they hear of your

6:17:58

brand. A great question that I would

6:18:00

encourage you to ask yourself before you

6:18:02

make any moves for a monetization play

6:18:04

are, will this increase trust with my

6:18:07

audience or decrease trust? Will this

6:18:10

make my audience trust me more or trust

6:18:12

me less? And if the answer is that it's

6:18:15

less, I promise you it is not worth it.

6:18:19

Period. To summarize, obviously

6:18:20

monetization is extremely important. We

6:18:22

have to make money in order to pay our

6:18:24

bills, in order to be able to fund

6:18:25

projects like this, for example. But the

6:18:27

reality is is if you try to make that

6:18:28

play too early, you're going to burn

6:18:31

your audience and degrade trust. You

6:18:33

need to make sure that you establish

6:18:34

immense amount of trust before you start

6:18:36

monetizing your audience. This is going

6:18:38

to make that monetization season, that

6:18:41

play, so much easier for you and will

6:18:45

allow you to continue to monetize down

6:18:48

the road. The ones who are trying to

6:18:49

make a short-term cash grab, what

6:18:51

they're doing is feeding themselves

6:18:52

today, but what they don't realize is

6:18:54

they're making it difficult to feed

6:18:55

themselves tomorrow. What you want to do

6:18:58

is build a brand that allows you to

6:19:00

continue to feed yourself day after day

6:19:02

after day. But this only comes when you

6:19:05

establish trust

6:19:07

first. All right, that is exactly what I

6:19:10

would do if I were building a brand from

6:19:13

scratch. I hope you got a lot of value

6:19:15

out of this and I hope you plan on

6:19:16

taking action. So, in the spirit of

6:19:19

taking action, please make sure that you

6:19:21

download all the playbooks that we've

6:19:23

given you throughout this entire course.

6:19:25

It is my only goal that you not only

6:19:28

consume this, but that you actually take

6:19:30

action. That's what makes this whole

6:19:32

time that you've invested worth it. It's

6:19:34

pretty wild how much we were able to

6:19:35

cover. So, here's a quick refresher to

6:19:38

remind you of every little thing that we

6:19:40

went through. First, we started with

6:19:42

what brand is and isn't. Then, we went

6:19:44

to defining your brand, then positioning

6:19:46

your brand. Then, we went to picking

6:19:48

your topics, choosing your content

6:19:50

medium, choosing the right platforms,

6:19:52

determining your posting cadence,

6:19:53

utilizing storytelling in your content,

6:19:55

having your community drive your

6:19:57

content. Then we went to scaling your

6:19:59

content, creating space for

6:20:00

experimentation with content hackathons,

6:20:02

why your team is everything, defining

6:20:04

your needs before hiring, streamlining

6:20:05

your hiring process, hiring for culture,

6:20:07

training for skills, starting lean,

6:20:09

growing intentionally, full-time

6:20:11

employees versus contractors and

6:20:12

agencies, onboarding your team properly,

6:20:14

developing and retaining your high

6:20:16

performing team. Building a strong team

6:20:18

culture, building trust before you

6:20:19

transact. defining your monetization

6:20:21

model, sharing the knowledge, selling

6:20:23

the execution, building your offer

6:20:24

stack, letting your content do the

6:20:26

selling, tracking and scaling, and last

6:20:28

but not least, playing the long game.

6:20:30

Now, like I said, it's your turn to

6:20:32

execute. But for some of you, you may

6:20:34

look at this entire course and be like,

6:20:36

"Holy this is way too much for me

6:20:38

and my team to be able to execute

6:20:40

alone." And that's where my team, Rston,

6:20:43

is here to help. We provide the

6:20:45

direction and guidance along the way to

6:20:46

help you take this plan and build a

6:20:48

strategy that drives real results and

6:20:50

leads to actual brand scale. And so if

6:20:53

you are interested in potentially

6:20:54

partnering with us, you can go to caleb

6:20:56

rston.com, hit the application button,

6:20:58

and see if you qualify to be one of our

6:21:01

partners. We would be incredibly stoked

6:21:02

to partner with you and help you scale

6:21:04

your brand. Now, the reality is is the

6:21:07

majority of you watching this, we will

6:21:09

never have the opportunity to partner

6:21:10

with. And that's okay. That's why we

6:21:13

made this course completely free for

6:21:15

you. My goal is to help you, whether we

6:21:18

ever work together or not, scale your

6:21:21

brand and see the results and create the

6:21:23

life and the company and the business

6:21:25

and whatever you're trying to build that

6:21:27

you have dreamed of. If you got value

6:21:29

out of it, consider maybe sending it to

6:21:31

your team on Slack or texting it to a

6:21:33

friend that you know is trying to build

6:21:34

their brand. It's free and available for

6:21:36

anyone. Share it with anyone you think

6:21:38

would get value out of it. And last but

6:21:40

not least, if you made it this far,

6:21:42

thank you. My team and I put an

6:21:44

incredible amount of effort into this

6:21:46

project and it's just our second video

6:21:48

that we've put out and I can't tell you

6:21:50

how much your attention means to me. I

6:21:54

know this was a very long piece of

6:21:55

content here. And so you dedicating your

6:21:59

time, there's a lot of different things

6:22:02

that you could spend your time on. And

6:22:03

the fact that you spent it here with me,

6:22:06

I'll never be able to explain to you how

6:22:08

much that means. So, I just want to say

6:22:09

from the bottom of my heart, thank you.

6:22:12

Thank you for paying attention, for

6:22:13

consuming, and thank you for taking

6:22:15

action on this. Please let me know how

6:22:17

it goes. Keep me updated. I want to hear

6:22:20

about how your brand is scaling. And

6:22:22

with that, that is how to build a brand.

6:22:25

Thank you so much.

More transcripts

Explore other videos transcribed with YouTLDR.

Get the TLDR of any YouTube video

Transcribe, summarize, and repurpose videos in 125+ languages — free, no signup required.

Try YouTLDR Free