But for those who do understand that distribution, do you with us? If so, can you please elaborate with an example of the distribution bottleneck? Here your take on how to distribute AI capabilities better.
You can apply this to virtually any business on Earth. If you ask them to walk you through their customer journey from first contact to last, even a monkey could see where AI or automation could help. The core problem today is that we can model these automations but they often produce no intended output—it's just raw image knowledge. If you get on a call with one of these people, watch five minutes of any of my videos, see what they're doing, and you'll immediately think, 'Okay, we can actually improve this significantly, or even reach Einstein-level insight.' That's how it is: most business owners lack the time to watch YouTube videos like we do, or to write out pipelines and similar processes. Getting on a call with you makes it a simple process, yet you'll be surprised how many high‑performing businesses still send most of their emails manually, copy‑paste templates, or rely on administrators who just enter data into standardized government forms—they haven't realized this capability yet. While it's not a complete fix, you can exploit the current market arbitrage by learning just enough to frontload outreach and articulate these solutions, thereby building a strong distribution network. In 5, 10, or 20 years, depending on the economy, that network could survive because clients prefer working with you due to lower friction and ease. In short, distribution is crucial. As an example, Zed started outreach with a low‑level Instantly clone for his own use, sending 15 emails a day limited by one inbox, and couldn't find good free PPC agency communities for real conversation. My recommendation: if you're 15 or 16, get paid inboxes via a platform like Instantly—they've already done the work you're doing, so you can exchange a small fee for immediate scale without rebuilding everything from scratch. It really does make sense.
My AI and automation agency makes significantly less money than my coaching. Coaching is extraordinarily scalable—when you run a YouTube channel with distribution like I do, the optimal next choice is to sell something hyperscalable with zero delivery or logistics, which is what my coaching stuff is. If you're a total beginner, your optimal choice changes depending on whether you have distribution: with distribution, you'd go for e‑commerce or info‑product with a templated service; without distribution, you'd run an agency because agencies let you get your first 10, 20, $50k in revenue super quickly. Agencies allow you to make a lot of money very quickly, but you tend to plateau relatively fast, with further gains being incremental. Contrast that with an information product business (like a community or SaaS), which has zero marginal cost after a fixed development cost, so you make little money at first but way more later. Does this make sense? From my perspective, when I started my agency I was up here, made money quickly, hit resistance, wanted to scale with as little headcount as possible, moved over here, and now I'm significantly higher. Would I recommend doing what I'm doing now to total beginners? No—many people throw away their businesses after starting coaching because they stop doing the main service, become disconnected from implementation, lose skill, and start teaching the wrong way. That's why this YouTube channel is valuable: I'm showing you how I actually generate leads for my agency. I want to change the fraction of my total revenue that comes from this channel; I don't think it's the most effective use of my time per dollar, but I believe it will indirectly lead to more money through authenticity, so I'm getting back to selling outbound for the agency, setting up more inbound funnels, adding calls‑to‑action at the end of videos, and going to hire a team eventually.
The first point: you're claiming the video editing market is saturated. I'd say there are far more new market entrants in AI than in video editing, and many are applying AI to video editing, changing the economics. Is AI just automation drag-and-drop backends, AI agents, or does it encompass all knowledge work? If so, there are many entrants, making it very saturated. However, I like highly competitive markets because they suggest opportunity and money to be made; competitors often do a poor job, so with a little first‑principles thinking you can be vastly better. For example, Upwork is saturated but the average proposal is terrible spam. By improving basic elements—profile picture, message bubble, cover letter, spelling/grammar—you can stand out and dominate. When you do that, you don't need to worry about cheap hourly rates because you'll be in the top 1% of the 1%, following a power‑law distribution. How to charge for outcomes with video editing: I often get pitched outcome‑based deals. The better outreach is to say you've managed channels for big names or done editing for any video, letting you claim views from those channels (even if the views came from brand growth). You can guarantee improvements in metrics like watch time or CTR. For instance, guarantee a lift in average watch time. You take their starting statistic over the last 90 days, run your service for a set period, build a relationship while editing, and by the end they'll know and like you, having worked with you. If you're a thumbnail designer, you could guarantee CTR improvement. Finally, how to start selling with no proof: use the service on your own business. If you were selling cold email, you'd run it on your own business, generate opportunities (e.g., 28 meetings in 4 days for an IT or software firm), then bootstrap that into proof with each client you work with.
Yeah, so for big builds, don't just do it all in one shot; avoid big all-encompassing systems because scope creep usually leads to a situation where you haven't clearly defined what you’ll do for the client, which is impossible to specify ahead of time, causing the client to expect something you didn’t agree to for payment, breeding resentment and harming the relationship. Instead, start with a small starter project that’s tightly scoped and agreed upon by both sides, then vibe each other out to learn what the client likes and demonstrate your aptitude—this lets you pitch more later and gives you insight into their business before committing to a massive scope. If you’re doing this for a company and need to send 10,000 depersonalized emails, think logically: using Make, first you get the leads (one op), then you iterate through the leads (n ops), generate icebreakers (another n ops), and optionally upload to Instantly (another n ops) or bulk‑upload to Google Sheets (effectively one op). Roughly, that’s about three n ops, or two n ops if you use the bulk‑upload shortcut. For 10,000 records that works out to roughly 20,000 operations, give or take. As for the Make plan, the $34‑per‑month Core plan gives you 40,000 ops, plenty of headroom; you don’t need the Pro plan unless you want better error handling, in which case the Pro plan is $62. You can start with Core and upgrade later, paying only the difference. On a personal note, I’m about twenty minutes into this video and feeling locked in; I’ve gotten more done today than in the past week because I’ve committed to stop daily posting on my main channel. My growth has slowed—my first‑24‑hour view‑to‑subscriber ratio dropped from about 15% (≈15,000 views on 100k subs) to around 5% (≈5,000 views). Comments suggest this is because my niche‑specific content has saturated its audience, and broadening the topic would attract less‑interested viewers. Elrico noted that my recent videos repeat earlier material, which may also be hurting growth, and suggested exploring other tools besides Make, like voice agents and live builds. Parker joked about throwing me on while cooking to start a riot over quitting daily, and shared ideas such as adding an automation bucket for publicly traded codes to save Coinbase money, using customer‑support headcount as an input for percentage assessments, and targeting big logos to pull in the right audience. My daily updates channel now has about 5,600 subscribers, while the main channel sits at 110,750. I’m checking follower‑count tools like Trend Hero, though I’m not sure about the daily‑limit metric. Reflecting on all this feedback, I’ve decided to stop posting daily and instead pursue a multifaceted strategy: focus on what makes me unique—my calm, low‑production‑value, high‑signal‑to‑noise conversational content—and develop a new, less‑replicable format. With my team, we’ve decided to pursue the “complete and utter uncopyable thing”: building a business with this stuff in front of everybody, doing it extraordinarily well by spending time generating leads, selling them, securing proposals, onboarding clients, fulfilling projects, and growing the company. Nobody else can replicate that live business‑building demonstration. My earlier live video of starting and selling an AI service in ten hours went viral precisely because it proved I can generate leads on camera; it’s a litmus test for knowing how to do this.
Most people see AI as a simple chatbot that answers questions like a search engine, not realizing it can be woven into a business’s core infrastructure—such as decision‑making routing—to act more like an intelligence that moves information through a network to solve problems faster. Over the next few years, companies that implement AI infrastructurally will see major gains in speed to market, customer‑need identification, and product development. For example, when I posted a job for packaging and ideation, applicants didn’t send simple pitch ideas; they built full applications showing how my YouTube titles and thumbnails would look with real‑time data, demonstrating how deeply AI can surface and address user needs.