A year and a half ago, I made a decision that looked insane on paper.
We had just taken over Fraser's channel. He runs a production studio in the UK, was doing about ~£85K a month when he came to us.
And the first thing I did was kill any chance of his videos going viral.
On purpose.
Every video we planned was built around terms like "meta ad creatives," "static ads," "creative diversity."
If you judged our strategy by subscriber growth in the first months, you'd have fired us.
Today Fraser is doing over £200K a month.
Not despite the boring videos. Because of them.
Here's what I understood then that most founders still don't:
The person searching "how to scale meta ad creatives" at 11pm isn't a viewer. They're a buyer. They have a business, a budget, and a problem burning a hole in their week. The video doesn't need to convince them they have a problem, it just needs to show them who solves it.
And once I started looking for this pattern, I found it everywhere… including at the very top.
Iman Gadzhi has 6 million subscribers. But his high-ticket clients don't come from that channel. They come from a second, much smaller one, aimed only at founders already past $250K.
Alex Becker: 2 million subscribers on his main channel, but needed a second channel about Facebook ads that feeds his software company.
The biggest names in the game are deliberately building small channels.
I just put out a video breaking down exactly how this works. The full playbook behind Fraser's channel, the math on why tiny view counts outconvert viral ones, and how the top creators structure this.
It's here if you want it: https://youtu.be/CWLOeUzpEkM?si=PYTls7xnc2_3I9V-
Till then,
- Alex