Search

The Evolution of Creator’s Systems
⚙️

The Evolution of Creator’s Systems

⚙️ The Evolution of Creator’s Systems

Brendan February 25th, 2025

In this article I’ll cover my fascination with large creators and their creation systems. I’ll discuss how these organizations are evolving interconnected systems, and how focusing on the end function of the creation system is more beneficial than trying to replicate complex ever-changing micro-processes.

When we discover a creator we love it’s only natural to wonder how they produce their content. I’ve often felt inspired to synthesize their best practices into the organizations I’ve worked in. However learning how top creators and channels operate is more complex than it used to be. The platform’s leading channels have grown into massive organizations with processes that go far beyond straightforward comprehension. In fact, after peeking behind the curtain of several large organizations, I’ve come to realize these systems can be so intricate that even the top creators may not precisely know how their businesses are evolving to achieve their end function (their core purpose). This is a natural step as a creator grows their business and starts to hire specialists who begin to lead the direction of their teams and strategy. The creator then evolves into a CEO-esque role where their day to day consists of macro-level strategy and business growth. This complexity isn't accidental; it's a natural consequence of the way these organizations evolve.

As creator businesses scale, executives may lose sight of the granular processes driving results. They become more like someone overseeing a production line, ensuring each department aligns with the overarching vision.¹ Conversely, department heads may not fully understand how other teams operate. And even if they do, that knowledge quickly becomes outdated as the organization constantly adapts, with each Sub-System evolving to optimize for its own end function.

Even if you could capture a perfect snapshot of a system's inner-workings, it would be temporary. These systems rewrite themselves so frequently that the state of the machine today could vary from tomorrow. Therefore, instead of chasing the ever-changing "how," we should focus on the enduring "why"—the end function of the overall System and its Sub-Systems. It’s an “asking the right question” problem if you will.

Let's explore a hypothetical situation illustrating how a system's end function can accurately predict how business leaders will grow a company. By doing so you will have a clear sense of how to think about the efficient operation (and scaling if desired) of the creator business you’ve founded or work within.

Figure 1.1 A
Figure 1.1 A new solo-creator’s system map. Their end function is uploading content that gets as many views as possible, with a consistent upload cadence.

In the diagram above there are three parts: Ideation, Production, and Post-Production. They are all a system within a system. And within that system is an infinite amount of systems… (but we’ll leave that to your imagination). Ideation, for example, can therefore be considered a Sub-System. Let’s map out how a Sub-System like Ideation evolves as a channel’s success drives growth. I’ll do this visually with short explanations below each image, followed by the key takeaways.

Figure 1.2 Ideation as a Sub-System. This Sub-System’s end function is the creation of video ideas/concepts.
Figure 1.2 Ideation as a Sub-System. This Sub-System’s end function is the creation of video ideas/concepts.
Figure 1.3² After throwing things at the wall for a few System cycles, the solo-creator becomes aware of an overarching trend amongst videos that do well. They take notice on this style, and modify their Sub-System processes in an attempt to try to generate ideas that have these success properties (e.g., engaging pacing, popular topics, specific editing techniques).
Figure 1.3² After throwing things at the wall for a few System cycles, the solo-creator becomes aware of an overarching trend amongst videos that do well. They take notice on this style, and modify their Sub-System processes in an attempt to try to generate ideas that have these success properties (e.g., engaging pacing, popular topics, specific editing techniques).
Figure 1.4² The solo-creator then formalizes these success properties
Figure 1.4² The solo-creator then formalizes these success properties (like engaging pacing, popular topics, specific editing techniques) into repeatable video formats. To test potential new formats, creators can draw upon their "Generated Idea Pool" (their repository of brainstormed concepts and themes) to produce one-off videos (videos outside of established series). The performance data of these videos, alongside existing format data, creates a reinforcing feedback loop. This loop drives the refinement of existing formats and the development of new formats, which can then be intentionally designed and ideated for future content creation.
Figure 1.5² The solo-creator hires a team of people whose sole purpose is to automate and improve this Sub-System within the main System. This fully dedicated Ideation team deploys a variety of ideation methods to generate ideas; they’ll ideate both one-offs and formats. Ideation methods begin to reinforce themselves dependent on how effective they previously were. At the same time, formats may perform positively and reinforce the need for those formats. The Sub-System will continue to adapt and build upon itself.
Figure 1.5² The solo-creator hires a team of people whose sole purpose is to automate and improve this Sub-System within the main System. This fully dedicated Ideation team deploys a variety of ideation methods to generate ideas; they’ll ideate both one-offs and formats. Ideation methods begin to reinforce themselves dependent on how effective they previously were. At the same time, formats may perform positively and reinforce the need for those formats. The Sub-System will continue to adapt and build upon itself.

Initially, Systems may just be mental outlines, but they gradually become clear, concrete processes. In the first few iterations, there isn’t even much scale being added, yet the process maps are still more refined.

Each time you go through the Sub-System steps you complete another cycle. This highlights the pitfalls of the Sub-Systems (i.e. Ideation, Production, Post-Production) and System as a whole. This forces you to iterate. It forces you to clearly define the steps and feedback loops that comprise the Sub-System (Ideation in the above diagrams). The more explicitly defined the Sub-System, the easier it is to be consciously aware of its steps. Which, in turn, makes it more effective at achieving its end function.

Once a Sub-System reliably achieves its end function, you can begin automating it and building a dedicated team around it. This team brings more dedicated brainpower to refining the Sub-System (i.e. Ideation, Production, Post-Production, compounding results over time.

→ Side note: it also may apply pressure from within your company to continue to scale

image

When you apply this natural growth and improvement pattern across every Sub-System, your Creation System as a whole is radically different than when it started. The stacking of improvements through iterative changes creates compounding effects, ultimately resulting in the highly efficient industry behemoths we see today. The reality is these organizations are similar to the human body. They contain multiple intertwined Sub-Systems which are all operating individually, yet in cooperation towards a singular System end function. Because organizations and their Systems are never static, a perfect snapshot of how they operate today provides only limited insight into the future. This is why I urge anyone looking to build or refine their own systems to focus on the end function rather than the exact methods used to achieve it.

In summary, if you’re building or scaling a creator organization, focus on clarifying the end function (the core purpose) of the System and each Sub-System to guide continuous iteration and improvement. The specific processes you seek to replicate will naturally develop—and evolve—as long as your end function (the core purpose) remains front and center.

Much love,

Brenno

Footnotes

¹ We can have a completely separate discussion on whether this is a good practice or not- perhaps it’s an article for another day.

² I spent a long time contemplating if you evaluate feasibility prior to determining there is a need for the format. I made a decent argument for both ways in my head, and came to the conclusion that it could vary based on maturity of the operation. If you think I’m wrong, shoot me a message. Would love to hear a varying opinion.

Type of content