If you're hiring junior people then sure. In Mr Beast's interview with Lex Fridman, he says he actually prefers hiring people from outside the entertainment industry because those folks really want to do what they did before, how they did it before, and not the Mr Beast way. Reading between the lines, I think he ends up hiring a lot of junior people because they're not set in their ways. Also probably they'll work long hours because they're just getting their start.
Makes sense. Training juniors is a thing and maybe this document is also speaking to how at least it's working there.
Past film and tv folks I know have a hard time just diving in and doing it because they're so used to the processes they've had before. Not all are like this, and the ones that aren't, have a huge advantage over juniors with the open mind and experience to boot.
Even the digital side of shooting with a high end phone and editing well enough with tools still seems to not convince them.
On the other side, the OBS crowd, and youtubers are year by year improving their production skills and some of it's kind of starting to look pretty high quality.
Youtube will have no problem if it wants becoming the universal cable network with an obscure channel for pretty much everything that is very decent quality.
I've also heard this exact same thing from my employer who hired ke straight out or college. Most of the company was comprised of young people. My boss, who was C level told me young people are easier to mold and now that I'm older I 100% agree with that. It's much easier to learn good habits than to unlearn bad ones.
>It's much easier to learn good habits than to unlearn bad ones.
How do you know they are 'good habits'. I have seen countless years of bad practices lauded internally as amazing/the etalon weight when it comes to code quality. In reality most of them were textbook examples of what should not be done. When you get folks without any previous experience, there's no one to question the status or the authority. If they learn/wisen up, they are likely to leave.
Recent grads tend to be more evidence-oriented than people with experience, IME. They'll e.g. benchmark something to see whether it's faster rather than going by reputation alone.
Hmm - that's quite nice/reassuring, although not my experience. Benchmarking, OTOH, is notoriously hard, esp. the microbenchmark type. The old: lies, damn lies, statistics, (micro)benchmarks.
It's the best company I've ever worked at so far. The fact that mostly everyone was in their 20s to early 30s meant we had an awesome cohesive culture.
Note I said mostly. Of course there were older people, but they were in their 40s and early 50s. They were few and far between, and they were the "adults" in the room when needed. It worked really well.
In our 20s we might not know better, follow others and end up letting the current take us where it may.
Sometimes when I meet an 18 year old I wonder how they are having experiences where they are growing or the rate of growing is slowing much quicker than someone who was on the early internet.
If you can stay young and build discipline in all ages it works as you are saying.
It’s less about being the adult in the room as much as supporting people to grow and become those people they are seeking.
Sure, at an individual level age might not matter much. But taken in aggregate, age means a lot in the context of company culture building. Take any average 24 year old and see how much they have in common with a 34 year old or 40 year old. Let's not pretend life doesn't change over time and hand wave it with a nice platitude.
But how do you know what's good, and what's bad without a diversity of experience under one's belt? You could be working at a cult, or the greatest company ever. What Mr Beast does works for Mr. Beast. Same for your employer.
