Founded with a vision to inform and entertain in 2006, sometime around 2011, WatchMojo made four big bets and updated its mission from serving audiences with a video on every topic to ranking pop culture. If location counts in real life, it’s even more paramount online: we bet the farm on YouTube, not only because it was the future, but because, to me, it presented the only real organic, natural video community.

As a finance graduate, but a writer at heart, I was blown away by the amount of immediate, direct feedback the platform’s then-billion users provided. Today, YouTube has over 2 billion users and is the leading media and information ecosystem in the world.

From 2012 to 2016, we grew from less than ten employees to over 50, as our subscribers went from 10,000 to 15,000,000. In our 20-plus-year history, we have experienced many company life-stage cycles, and I’d say we are now in our third growth period. But survival and the avoidance of the perpetual decline stage is no certainty or God-given right. You have to earn it, for no one has a birthright to success, let alone relevance.

As we celebrated our 20th anniversary, and with core operations in good hands, I began to focus on WM2030, the iterative, evolutionary, and revolutionary initiatives that would shape the company in a decade, the same way WM2020 birthed MsMojo and other successful endeavors.

In that hockey-stick growth-curve period of 2012–2016, a lot of YouTube users who were subscribers or viewers of WatchMojo programming were surprised to see WatchMojo reading, replying, and engaging in comments… and some sleuths figured out that the “passive-aggressive” Mr. X was not some social media intern, but the company founder, who would have paid millions for that kind of feedback.

“The reports of WatchMojo’s death are as old as WatchMojo itself…”

Well before my first burnout in the late 2010s, I had stopped obsessing over the comments section and focused on managing the company as we’d quintupled our headcount. As part of our 20-year self-evaluation, I’d occasionally pop into the comments to see the feedback.

Even during the Mr. X days, I would never comment on other channels.

For as long as I remember, YouTubers — especially the drama, hit-job squad, which is a natural part of any ecosystem and certainly a genre on the platform — would publish videos bashing WatchMojo. With success, this comes with the territory.

Last month, I came across a video and commented on it, and while my takeaway was that it’s best to simply avoid commenting at all, the only real regret I have was not watching the video first. My intention was more to make a general comment about the evolution of YouTube, the challenge of staying true to your most loyal fans while serving new audiences, and specifically not to make it about the video or channel in question… but it was the wrong message to the wrong crowd. This wasn’t a business class I was teaching, nor a case study on media. I get it, all good.

I am a nobody now and was a bigger nobody when I started WatchMojo, but as a matter of principle, I don’t like to ignore people or seem like I am above criticism. So my habit of addressing people may seem “passive-aggressive” when it’s actually rooted in my nature. A few other YouTubers, who themselves “run out of ideas” for videos according to their critics, saw great fodder, pounced on my comment, and ran with it with many more videos criticizing everything about us. Some unfair, some certainly fair.

To me, our “brand” or goodwill is the Sum of Feelings & Emotions Generated By the Cumulative Effect of Our Videos” and the User Experience. We can claim to be one thing, but if our product or service (in our case, videos on YouTube) illicit a different reaction, it’s worth listening.

Some people are driven by fame, others by wealth. For twenty years, I avoided the former and delayed gratification of the latter, and paradoxically built WatchMojo into one of the most successful startups. Much of that was following your instinct, but also looking for the proverbial diamond in the rough terrain that is feedback and criticism. Not all of it is fair or accurate, but if you focus on the falsehoods, you miss out on what you need to hear and consider.

Below are some of the most common criticisms of WatchMojo and how to address them (we’re known for top 10s, but I can never have enough feedback, so here are 11).

Criticism #11: “You Have 25 Million Subscribers but Your Videos Don’t Get Millions of Views”

In YouTube’s early days, most videos — regardless of subject matter — featured a thumbnail that showcased an attractive girl, garnering a lot of clicks (CTR), but little retention, or low average watch duration, which signaled low satisfaction to YouTube’s algorithm.

We always tried to be representative and accurate in our videos, and once we focused on top 10s, that meant ensuring that each entry was properly explained. And, given the countdown nature of our videos, audiences not only clicked, but sat through the lion’s share of the video, which meant high watch time. That focus on user experience paid off.

If you fast forward twenty years, it’s certainly fair to ask “how come you have 25 million subscribers but your videos get 10,000-100,000 views out of the gates?”

There are a handful of factors at play:

  1. As the platform grew and more users subscribed to more channels, it was impossible for YouTube to notify each user every time a subscribed channel published a video. As YouTube stopped notifying subscribers, it slowly de-emphasized the value of subscribers, since most users found videos by way of their timeline, related videos, or search. Subscribers became a “vanity metric” that mattered to publicists and media buyers, but it had little correlation.
  2. While WatchMojo is seen as homogeneous due to its popular Top 10 format, given the wide breadth of the underlying topics, we are actually heterogeneous relative to most channels that really “super-serve” their audience by going very niche in the topics they cover.
  3. We were not only ahead of the curve on YouTube, but also the entire Peak TV era in which “geek culture overtook pop culture,” the name of our second documentary. But as Disney overplayed its hand with the MCU, streamers began to scale back on programming, and media entered a period of consolidation, naturally the number of new shows we could cover fell as well.
  4. Someone who subscribed to WatchMojo at, say, 18 years of age in 2016 is now 28, and their obsession over Star Wars may not have waned per se, but other priorities in life creep up, new interests arise, and all of this meant that WatchMojo had to evolve as well… which explains the rise of true crime, current affairs, and business programming, all topics we covered from Day One in 2006. This now creates a new problem, which I will discuss below.

So those are the factors and explanations, but it’s not an excuse. Until now, I rationalized these myself so as not to make the team paranoid. But now, I realize: these are not MySpace or GeoCities subscribers. The vast majority of these 25 million subscribers remain active on the platform, and while it won’t materialize overnight, it remains an interesting “problem” to solve, and one I am now focused on tackling via polls, feedback, and new programming initiatives.

Given that WatchMojo’s library is evergreen and new users flock to YouTube, we are fortunate to perpetually serve a new stream of viewers, but it’s certainly fair to say that the other opportunity may not simply be finding new viewers. It may be reconnecting with existing ones, regaining their attention and trust. It’s a great problem to have!

Criticism #10: “WatchMojo Is Too Corporate”

Let’s break down a key distinction. Saying “WatchMojo is corporate” in abstract is unfair and inaccurate, but saying WatchMojo is corporate based on what many today view as a typical YouTuber is fair.

For starters, I started WatchMojo with my wife and recruited three co-founders. Until 2020, all five remained with the firm; one left in 2020 after 20 years. We have an incredible amount of retention and a very healthy culture, and not solely by benchmarking to the misdeeds elsewhere: job satisfaction surveys are consistently strong with very positive feedback. Until 2020, we did not even have outside investors. I sold 25% of WatchMojo to a PE fund more for continuity — i.e., if I get hit by a bus, payroll isn’t an issue, but will the company survive a year out and file annual reports, etc.? I didn’t need the money; it was to ensure the company’s future.

So while I hear this a lot, WatchMojo is more of a family-owned, medium-sized company that has actually eschewed much of the usual corporate shenanigans that kill businesses. But I fully concede that, next to certain YouTubers, regardless of their authenticity and sincerity, we come across as more corporate and less folksy or personal.

Now that said, to illustrate the point that I purposely did not want to build “AshMojo,” but rather a media company that stood the test of time and was built to last, yes, it is structured as a corporation. So, in that sense, it is absolutely fair. To me, I wanted to build a team, as celebrity, fame, clout-chasing, etc. always seemed out of character for me and immodest.

It’s easier for me to root, defend, fight, and win for a team than myself. So, more of a feature, and not a bug.

Criticism #9: “WatchMojo Is Faceless/No Personalities”

Many critics lump the corporate and faceless criticisms together, though these are different to me, as explained above.

In 2006, we actually began with hosted segments, replicating MTV’s VJs to some extent, where each host would present something or interview someone. I wanted to develop each as an expert or talent in a field, but the content was so wide — food, travel, fashion, entertainment, cars, across a myriad of formats like how-tos, biographies, profiles, Q&As, interviews, etc. — that we needed to focus, and we found our calling with clip-based, voice-over Top 10 countdowns on pop culture. The star of the video was… the topic. We were all so passionate about pop culture that it was a welcome shift.

I had also recruited a lot of journalism and communications students who were more skilled as researchers, writers, videographers, and video editors than, say, “quirky personalities” who could star in front of the camera. Bear in mind, part of my thesis was that the development of technology and proliferation of user-generated content would make certain categories altogether cluttered.

Online, this breakdown has remained somewhat accurate over time and across platforms.

I think a majority of our viewers like that we keep the focus on the topics, and we have certainly introduced our team in videos, but there is a vocal minority that may welcome seeing more faces and knowing that there are real people behind the channel, which takes me to the next point.

Criticism #8: “You Never Interact with the Community”

Notwithstanding that I personally lived in the comments section from 2012–2017, it is certainly true that we don’t really engage in the comments the way I would like us to, but that is also because I realize everyone is busy doing the work. That said, this is an area we will be tackling with more community-based programming, as I do think that, in 2026, audiences want to participate more than be mere passive viewers, and I think it’ll help address many of the misconceptions we face.

We don’t necessarily want to transform WatchMojo into a personality-driven creator brand, but we can do a better job showcasing the people who make the content.

Feedback Fridays, where we review viewer comments, criticism, and suggestions.

What’s Your Pick?, which would highlight audience opinions and debates.

These initiatives could be hosted by Phoebe and Rebecca while featuring other members of the broader team.

The goal is simple: create a simple, official, formal communications loop, and showcase our team without losing focus on the style and format that a majority have come to appreciate.

While I will probably never comment on other channels, I will occasionally comment and reply on our channel when need be, and encourage the team to do so as well, as undoubtedly this was one of the ingredients to our success.

Criticism #7: “Use of AI (Voice-Over Narration)”

In this article, I will focus on WatchMojo. In an upcoming post, I will discuss AI in non-WatchMojo areas (yes, including SoundMojo, first explained here).

We have never, to my knowledge, used AI narration in any of our standard channels and don’t plan to. We use AI as part of our research process, but it is always powered by a human who is more or less left to their own devices and discretion to figure out how it can help them improve quality, minimize errors, and edit.

Our AI policy, if any, is more pragmatic and realistic than dogmatic: over time, many full-time and part-time contributors may use AI and not tell us, and we do not want to be an organization that focuses on figuring that out. So, given my transparent and empathetic nature, my recommendation was to be realistic, be transparent, ask them how and if they use it, and ensure the finished product is of quality. If it can help them, and the quality is not diminished, it is unreasonable as an employer to think an employee would not use a tool that saves them time, etc.

This highlights a broader challenge: misconceptions can spread faster than clarifications.

We have never let go of any individual because of AI. My view on AI is that “humans + machine” would yield the best outcomes.

We have had fairly little turnover in general over 20 years. If someone left of their own volition, we would simply ask whether that role was still necessary or whether some of the tasks were now unnecessary, as some steps were introduced one, even 19 years ago. But to suggest we have, or would, replace humans with AI is patently untrue, let alone that we use AI for voice overs.

Criticism #6: “You Publish Too Many Clips”

We receive hundreds, if not thousands, of suggestions per month. At one time in the 2010s, we relied heavily on our suggestion tool on WatchMojo for ideas.

All-time, the tool received:

Suggestions: 831,361
Entries Suggested: 4,780,562
Votes: 20,527,352
Comments: 298,627

So it was quite popular, but despite most media companies’ tendencies, we didn’t like asking our viewers to leave YouTube, so we de-emphasized it. Today, we receive suggestions in the comments section, which is not ideal, and through other channels.

Ultimately, we want to create videos based on as many requested ideas as possible, and over time this grew to seven videos per day across film, TV shows, pop culture, entertainment, sports, music, gaming, true crime, and more.

You may have seen some of our recent polls via YouTube’s Community post tab, expect more related news and developments soon.

Criticism #5: “Stay in Your Lane”

This criticism usually comes from longtime viewers who associate WatchMojo primarily with pop culture. When they see us cover business, true crime, current affairs, history, or other adjacent topics, the reaction is often simple:

“Stick to what you do best.”

It’s fair feedback, but it also overlooks part of our history.

Long before WatchMojo became synonymous with Top 10s and pop culture rankings, we covered business, entrepreneurship, history, current affairs, travel, fashion, cars, food, and many other subjects. In many ways, our shift into pop culture wasn’t a departure from our roots — it was a response to what audiences most strongly embraced.

The reality is that WatchMojo’s role has always been less about any specific category and more about capturing and curating the zeitgeist. We look at what people are talking about, what they care about, what they are passionate about, and what they are curious about.

The challenge is that both our interests and our audience’s tastes evolve over time. If we want to be authentic, naturally we want to cover what we are interested in.

Someone who subscribed to WatchMojo in 2014 because of comic book movies may now be interested in entrepreneurship, history, true crime, or geopolitics. Likewise, someone who discovered us through a business video may eventually become interested in our entertainment coverage.

Part of this reflects a broader evolution on YouTube itself. The platform has become increasingly niche, specialized, and verticalized. Many creators focus on serving a very specific audience with a very specific interest. There is tremendous value in that strategy, and many creators execute it brilliantly.

WatchMojo has historically taken a different approach.

Rather than serving a single niche, we have attempted to serve curiosity itself.

That creates tension. Expanding into new areas can alienate some existing viewers while attracting entirely new audiences. Yet remaining completely static carries its own risks. A media company that never evolves eventually becomes irrelevant.

The challenge, therefore, is not deciding whether to stay in our lane. It is determining how wide that lane should be while remaining true to what made people care about WatchMojo in the first place.

The goal is not to become everything to everyone.

The goal is to continue reflecting the interests, passions, and conversations shaping culture while staying recognizable as WatchMojo.

Criticism #4: “WatchMojo Is Biased”

Depending on who you ask, we are pro-Trump or suffer from TDS, anti-Musk or pro-Musk, woke or anti-woke, left-wing or right-wing, or, rather, just a reflection of society.

I have never projected my views, which are not partisan but more based on policy case by case, on the team. The team is also pretty heterogeneous. I do not, and cannot, control every word used, every sentence structure, and so on.

I also do not control what topics we green-light, and my own suggestions oftentimes get shut down.

But I get it: if someone lands on a video, they judge our so-called neutrality based on that video, and not our body of work. For instance, in “How Did Elon Musk Get So Rich,” a commenter pushed back on the criticism insinuated.

Yet in the greatest entrepreneurs video, his inclusion also got pushback.

This is a simple example of how, despite our intentions, yes, individual writers can phrase a sentence in a manner that comes across positive or negative, but this is more of a human dynamic than editorial policy. Our official policy is to be neutral, and I concede this comes down to training and feedback.

Depending on the viewer, any of those approaches can become evidence of bias.

The solution isn’t attempting to please everyone, as that’s impossible.

The solution is remaining open to feedback and striving for fairness, consistency, and objectivity.

Criticism #3: “Your Content Has Become Stale and Repetitive”

When we produce a Top 10 and it does really well, we bookmark it and periodically assess whether the list merits an update. If we do a Greatest Sports Comebacks of All Time list and the NY Knicks pull off the greatest comeback of all time, yes, we would be tempted to update it.

And instead of doing another Top 10 — we used to do Redux — given that audiences favour longer-form content and we don’t want to lazily simply replace an entry, we may update it as a Top 20 or Top 50, depending on what makes sense, and then republish it in that format.

But it’s usually more a reflection of viewer interest and/or a list needing an update than anything else. We have thousands of suggested topics in the queue otherwise.

Criticism #2: “You Monetize Tragedy”

Media companies inevitably cover tragic events, crimes, disasters, and controversial subjects.

WatchMojo has covered people through biographies, profiles, and lists, and we have always honored those who passed away with tributes.

People magazine featured Princess Diana on a special-edition issue that was its bestseller until its 9/11 issue, and while some objected to it, print media never gave its readers the same power that online media does.

Recognizing that, and understanding that YouTube was not traditional media, a decade ago we launched Mojo Gives, which simply identified a relevant cause through which we passed the proceeds.

Will this eliminate criticism? No. But bear in mind throughout the 2010s, I personally did lobby pretty tirelessly for fair use on the platform, and that was rooted in freedom of expression, media, press… so sometimes when “the mob” shows up with pitchforks and demands that something is taken down, I very respectfully think it sets a bad precedent to be censored. After all, this is a reality online:

Mojo Gives aligns commercial success with positive impact and helps ensure that coverage can contribute something meaningful beyond awareness. Now granted, the team has to use judgment on when to apply it, and if we ever overlook an example, as we did recently, then some of the criticism and pushback is fair perception-wise, though our intention is to generally pay tribute and honour people.

By nature and by default, we tend to be positive and celebrate fandom. Media brands can choose the tone of People or the snark of a TMZ. The reality is that across media, negative, cynical, snarky takes do better than positive ones, but negative angles make us a target of criticism by a vocal cohort even if most will gravitate towards critical takes (demonstrated by the popularity of “WatchMojo takedowns,” which personally I don’t really mind, i.e. SNL prefers to be hated and criticized than not talked about at all).

Criticism #1: “There Are Too Many Ads”

This criticism is understandable.

Viewers want fewer interruptions. Publishers need revenue. Platforms want monetization.

Nobody gets everything they want.

In response, we have already reduced advertising loads by approximately 25% to 50% in our new videos and are working with YouTube on the back catalog, as its ad-insertion system is part automated and part manual. With a back catalog of 30,000 videos, it’s not a simple switch, but as we upped our average running time, the ad load in some videos grew unbearable.

Final Thoughts

The democratization of media means that anyone can become a media company. It also gives everyone a voice. On YouTube, sometimes that means noise, but if you recognize that many would pay a king’s ransom for this kind of feedback, you take it in stride and value it.

While I will probably never make an appearance on any other channels to comment, here’s a nifty online form to leave me any questions, suggestions, feedback, or comments. TIA.