---
type: source
title: "MrBeast Makes More Money From Feastables Chocolate Than YouTube"
author: "Bloomberg"
url: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-03-10/mrbeast-makes-more-money-from-feastables-chocolate-than-youtube
date: 2025-03-10
domain: entertainment
secondary_domains: [internet-finance]
format: article
status: unprocessed
priority: high
tags: [content-as-loss-leader, mrbeast, feastables, creator-economy, distribution, value-capture]
---

## Content

**Revenue comparison:**
- Feastables (chocolate brand): $250M revenue in 2024, $20M+ profit
- Media business (YouTube + Amazon Prime): similar revenue but LOST $80M
- Feastables projected $520M in 2025 vs $288M from YouTube
- Media projected to be only 1/5 of total sales by 2026

**Distribution strategy:**
- Walmart as primary distribution partner (not D2C)
- Available in 30,000 retail locations across US, Canada, Mexico
- Also in Target and 7-Eleven
- Zero marginal cost customer acquisition through content (vs Hershey's/Mars 10-15% ad spend)

**Overall business:**
- Beast Industries raising at $5B valuation
- Revenue projection: $899M (2025) → $1.6B (2026) → $4.78B (2029)
- Five verticals: software (Viewstats), CPG (Feastables, Lunchly), health/wellness, media, video games

## Agent Notes
**Why this matters:** This is the most dramatic proof of content-as-loss-leader at scale. Content LOSES money but creates the audience that makes everything else profitable. The distributor (Walmart) captures retail margin, but the BRAND captures the brand premium — because the brand was built through content that bypassed traditional marketing costs.
**What surprised me:** The scale of the media loss — $80M. MrBeast is subsidizing content production at a massive loss because the ROI comes through Feastables. This means the "content economics" debate is the wrong frame — content IS the marketing budget, and $80M is a reasonable marketing budget for a $520M CPG brand.
**What I expected but didn't find:** Whether the content-as-loss-leader model changes WHAT content gets made. Does optimizing content for audience acquisition (Feastables customers) change the narrative quality or meaning?
**KB connections:** [[when profits disappear at one layer of a value chain they emerge at an adjacent layer through the conservation of attractive profits]], [[the media attractor state is community-filtered IP with AI-collapsed production costs where content becomes a loss leader for the scarce complements of fandom community and ownership]], [[value flows to whichever resources are scarce and disruption shifts which resources are scarce making resource-scarcity analysis the core strategic framework]]
**Extraction hints:** Claim about content-as-loss-leader being already operational at $500M+ scale. Claim about zero-CAC audience acquisition through content vs 10-15% traditional ad spend. The $5B valuation anchors the financial credibility.
**Context:** Bloomberg financial reporting, high reliability. This is Beast Industries' actual financial data, not projections or estimates.

## Curator Notes (structured handoff for extractor)
PRIMARY CONNECTION: when profits disappear at one layer of a value chain they emerge at an adjacent layer through the conservation of attractive profits
WHY ARCHIVED: Strongest real-world evidence of conservation of attractive profits in entertainment — content profits disappeared ($-80M), emerged at adjacent layer (Feastables $+20M), but the AGGREGATE system is profitable because content creates audience at zero marginal cost
EXTRACTION HINT: The key insight isn't "MrBeast is rich" — it's that content-as-loss-leader at this scale proves the attractor state mechanism. Focus on the structural economics, not the personality.
